The strike is OVER. The S is O!!
- Thread starter Dancanread
- Start date
Re: The strike is on. The S is O!!
Oh I know I was just pointing out that people said they were not making enough to support their families , Poor writers making nothing. yet that one example I just used was $103948 for one week.
$103948 is a hell of enough to support your family. I was pointing out the writers are not as poor and innocent as everyone is making out.
And the fact they were not happy with $103948 or even half that for other less successful films so they caused all those people to not even be making ANY money just so they can get more? Greed.
Again sorry if people take offence of that but what you call causing 100s to be jobless so you can make more money?
I'm not questioning how much someone can or can't make either I'm just trying to point out the writers ARE making money. everyone makes it sound like they are making $1 a week or some bull****
Agreed
Oh I know I was just pointing out that people said they were not making enough to support their families , Poor writers making nothing. yet that one example I just used was $103948 for one week.
$103948 is a hell of enough to support your family. I was pointing out the writers are not as poor and innocent as everyone is making out.
And the fact they were not happy with $103948 or even half that for other less successful films so they caused all those people to not even be making ANY money just so they can get more? Greed.
Again sorry if people take offence of that but what you call causing 100s to be jobless so you can make more money?
I'm not questioning how much someone can or can't make either I'm just trying to point out the writers ARE making money. everyone makes it sound like they are making $1 a week or some bull****
Agreed
Last edited:
ourchair
Well-Known Member
Re: The strike is on. The S is O!!
I don't mean to be flippant (and off-topic), but this is quite literally, an awesome thread in its ability to stay on-topic.
I'm so proud of us!
I don't mean to be flippant (and off-topic), but this is quite literally, an awesome thread in its ability to stay on-topic.
I'm so proud of us!
Re: The strike is on. The S is O!!
Read my earlier post about salary vs. hourly pay. Why on earth should the studios be responsible for paying salaries for work they aren't doing? They are losing money. It's not a communal pot - no one has the right to say to the studios, "you should pay it anyway - you can afford it." Who are you to tell the studios what they can/can't afford?
And what kind of car they drive is completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with anything. First of all these executives aren't paying wages/salary out of their pocket, so what difference does it make what they earn? And second of all, like I said - everyone has the right to earn money.
When you bring up what kind of car they drive or what they make it sounds suspiciously like jealousy and honestly it makes it kind of hard to take your argument seriously.
Read my earlier post about salary vs. hourly pay. Why on earth should the studios be responsible for paying salaries for work they aren't doing? They are losing money. It's not a communal pot - no one has the right to say to the studios, "you should pay it anyway - you can afford it." Who are you to tell the studios what they can/can't afford?
And what kind of car they drive is completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with anything. First of all these executives aren't paying wages/salary out of their pocket, so what difference does it make what they earn? And second of all, like I said - everyone has the right to earn money.
When you bring up what kind of car they drive or what they make it sounds suspiciously like jealousy and honestly it makes it kind of hard to take your argument seriously.
Re: The strike is on. The S is O!!
Like I said, I would never tell anyone that $103948 is "enough" and they should be happy with it.
But I would tell someone that they don't have the right to take food out of someone's mouth just so they can turn that into $103949.
Like I said, I would never tell anyone that $103948 is "enough" and they should be happy with it.
But I would tell someone that they don't have the right to take food out of someone's mouth just so they can turn that into $103949.
Re: The strike is on. The S is O!!
As best as I understand it, that is completely wrong. They are laying people off because they do not feel they should be paying their salaries when they aren't doing any work in return.
If they aren't salary positions and these are paid hourly then I totally agree - it is a douchebag move on the studios part. But they aren't working anyway so it's not like they are missing out on money, and they have the writers to thank for that anyway!
Either way - I am pretty sure the workers were laid off and not fired, and there is a HUGE difference between the two.
As best as I understand it, that is completely wrong. They are laying people off because they do not feel they should be paying their salaries when they aren't doing any work in return.
If they aren't salary positions and these are paid hourly then I totally agree - it is a douchebag move on the studios part. But they aren't working anyway so it's not like they are missing out on money, and they have the writers to thank for that anyway!
Either way - I am pretty sure the workers were laid off and not fired, and there is a HUGE difference between the two.
Lynx
Well-Known Member
Re: The strike is on. The S is O!!
Are you naive enough to believe these studios can't afford it? It doesn't matter who I am. . .its common sense.
The thing is. . .I'm pretty sure the writers didn't expect this to happen. I'm pretty sure they thought that they would have gotten this settled before it came to this. And even then. . .instead of working to end the strike as soon as possible so it wouldn't come to this, the studios decided to lay off a bunch of people. Do you really think the writers did this deliberately? How would they know that the studios would be so greedy that they would let it come to this?
And, now that its done, what are they supposed to do? Just give up? The damage is done.
I don't think its irrelevant at all. Where is all that extra money going that these companies make from DVD sales and online streaming? The executives and producers! So how is that irrelevant?
E said:
Are you naive enough to believe these studios can't afford it? It doesn't matter who I am. . .its common sense.
The thing is. . .I'm pretty sure the writers didn't expect this to happen. I'm pretty sure they thought that they would have gotten this settled before it came to this. And even then. . .instead of working to end the strike as soon as possible so it wouldn't come to this, the studios decided to lay off a bunch of people. Do you really think the writers did this deliberately? How would they know that the studios would be so greedy that they would let it come to this?
And, now that its done, what are they supposed to do? Just give up? The damage is done.
I don't think its irrelevant at all. Where is all that extra money going that these companies make from DVD sales and online streaming? The executives and producers! So how is that irrelevant?
Last edited:
Lynx
Well-Known Member
Re: The strike is on. The S is O!!
Your figure is completely off, Mole. Look up. $5200, not $103948.
Your figure is completely off, Mole. Look up. $5200, not $103948.
Re: The strike is on. The S is O!!
I worked out on a calculator by multiplying 130000 by $19.99 that gave me 2598700 , I shared that 100 to get 1% then I multiplied that by 4 to get 4% which was 103948
Even if it is 5200 it's still making money and so my point still stands
I worked out on a calculator by multiplying 130000 by $19.99 that gave me 2598700 , I shared that 100 to get 1% then I multiplied that by 4 to get 4% which was 103948
Even if it is 5200 it's still making money and so my point still stands
Re: The strike is on. The S is O!!
Again, who are you to tell them what they can or can't afford? Never mind, that's not the point.
So they gambled with a bunch of people's jobs? That's even worse.
Are you so naive as to think that the studios laid off these people in order to get even with the writers?
Pretend you are running a business. Would YOU want to pay salaries to people who are not doing any work and making you money in return?
You are completely off the point. I'm not saying there is no money there for the writers. I'm not saying they writers don't deserve it. I'm saying they don't have the right to create a situation where PEOPLE ARE LOSING WORK so they can make a little more money.
Like I said earlier, it doesn't make a bit of difference how surprised the writers were that the other workers were fired. Either these workers are salaried, meaning they get paid a set amount irrespective of the work they do, or they are wage-based, meaning they are paid on their output, whether that's measured in time or product.
If they are wage-based, then you can't possibly think the writers were not expecting the people not be able to work. If they aren't writing then the shows aren't being made and therefore the workers are not making money.
And if the workers are salaried, why the hell would studios want to lose money by paying people money when they aren't doing work?!
I do not believe for one second that they writers were so short sighted that they didn't foresee those scenarios happening.
Again, who are you to tell them what they can or can't afford? Never mind, that's not the point.
So they gambled with a bunch of people's jobs? That's even worse.
Are you so naive as to think that the studios laid off these people in order to get even with the writers?
Pretend you are running a business. Would YOU want to pay salaries to people who are not doing any work and making you money in return?
You are completely off the point. I'm not saying there is no money there for the writers. I'm not saying they writers don't deserve it. I'm saying they don't have the right to create a situation where PEOPLE ARE LOSING WORK so they can make a little more money.
Like I said earlier, it doesn't make a bit of difference how surprised the writers were that the other workers were fired. Either these workers are salaried, meaning they get paid a set amount irrespective of the work they do, or they are wage-based, meaning they are paid on their output, whether that's measured in time or product.
If they are wage-based, then you can't possibly think the writers were not expecting the people not be able to work. If they aren't writing then the shows aren't being made and therefore the workers are not making money.
And if the workers are salaried, why the hell would studios want to lose money by paying people money when they aren't doing work?!
I do not believe for one second that they writers were so short sighted that they didn't foresee those scenarios happening.
Lynx
Well-Known Member
Re: The strike is on. The S is O!!
. . .mole, they get $0.04 per DVD. Multiply that by 130000, the number sold. They made
Then, by your belief, so long as everybody get paid a dollar a day, hey, they're still making money! Come on.
First of all, $5200 is what they got paid the first week for a hugely successful movie. But, for argument's sake, let's run with it. We can expect that the drop by about a half week after week. $5200, $2600, $1300, $650. Which comes out just shy of 10 grand. If they made that every month, which is almost impossible, that would put them at about 120 grand. So, give or take, they probably make about half of that. 60 grand. Minus about 15 percent in taxes. . .52 grand. That's not a lot to support a family. Yes, they make money, but if you could try to make more to support your family, wouldn't you?
. . .mole, they get $0.04 per DVD. Multiply that by 130000, the number sold. They made
Then, by your belief, so long as everybody get paid a dollar a day, hey, they're still making money! Come on.
First of all, $5200 is what they got paid the first week for a hugely successful movie. But, for argument's sake, let's run with it. We can expect that the drop by about a half week after week. $5200, $2600, $1300, $650. Which comes out just shy of 10 grand. If they made that every month, which is almost impossible, that would put them at about 120 grand. So, give or take, they probably make about half of that. 60 grand. Minus about 15 percent in taxes. . .52 grand. That's not a lot to support a family. Yes, they make money, but if you could try to make more to support your family, wouldn't you?
Re: The strike is on. The S is O!!
if cost 100s of others their jobs or money? No it wouldn't even cross my mind.
By striking? No again wouldn't cross my mind
if cost 100s of others their jobs or money? No it wouldn't even cross my mind.
By striking? No again wouldn't cross my mind
Foolsfolly
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,137
Re: The strike is on. The S is O!!
Regardless of my opinion, this reminds me an awful lot like the pro and cons of going to war, which we've all seen since 2001.
Just thought I'd say that.
Regardless of my opinion, this reminds me an awful lot like the pro and cons of going to war, which we've all seen since 2001.
Just thought I'd say that.
Lynx
Well-Known Member
Re: The strike is on. The S is O!!
I'm pretty sure they didn't think the studios would do that. Hell, I wouldn't. That's a really low thing to do. Instead of settling, they decided it was more profitable for them to lay off people instead of meeting the writer's demands. How are the writers getting more of your ire than the studios over that?
Of course not. But, you completely missed the point. They had another option. They chose the easy way out. The writers didn't lay off these people. The studios did.
And I'm saying that you are villainizing the writers when you should be villainizing the studios. The studios are the ones who decided to let the strike go on. The studios are the ones who layed off these people instead of trying to end the strike.
If this is the case, while I don't think it is, then yes, you have a point.
Why the hell didn't the studios just try to end the damn strike!? That's my point! It sounds like you're siding with the studios on this! And besides. . .they're going to have to rehire these people anyways once its over. The studios are the ones that were short-sighted.
Again, if these people were paid a wage, then yeah, you're right. But if they're salaried which I'm pretty sure they are. . .then no, I don't think they did.
I'm pretty sure they didn't think the studios would do that. Hell, I wouldn't. That's a really low thing to do. Instead of settling, they decided it was more profitable for them to lay off people instead of meeting the writer's demands. How are the writers getting more of your ire than the studios over that?
Of course not. But, you completely missed the point. They had another option. They chose the easy way out. The writers didn't lay off these people. The studios did.
And I'm saying that you are villainizing the writers when you should be villainizing the studios. The studios are the ones who decided to let the strike go on. The studios are the ones who layed off these people instead of trying to end the strike.
If this is the case, while I don't think it is, then yes, you have a point.
Why the hell didn't the studios just try to end the damn strike!? That's my point! It sounds like you're siding with the studios on this! And besides. . .they're going to have to rehire these people anyways once its over. The studios are the ones that were short-sighted.
Again, if these people were paid a wage, then yeah, you're right. But if they're salaried which I'm pretty sure they are. . .then no, I don't think they did.
Re: The strike is on. The S is O!!
Lynx - come on. "Let the strike go on"? The writers are the ones refusing to work.
I don't know why I have to keep explaining this, but...I'm not siding with ANYONE. I've said from the beginning that the writers deserve more money. But neither you nor anyone else have been able to rationalize how it's better for writers to create a situation where thousands of people get ZERO money just so they can get a few cents MORE money. How the **** can you say that is right?!
You're asking me why the studios don't just agree to terms - I don't know. But I'm not defending them. My argument has NOTHING to do with whether or not the writers deserve the money or whether or not the studios should pay it.
But I can just as easily take that and apply it to what I AM arguing - why don't the writers just agree to the studios terms to these poor people who have lost their jobs can put food on their table and feed their children??!! Do you seriously not understand this?
The studios would not be in business if they were handing out money and not getting anything in return. So why the hell would they want to continue paying salaries to people who are not doing any work?! Because they can?! Well **** me, they should pay me a salary too!
Lynx - come on. "Let the strike go on"? The writers are the ones refusing to work.
I don't know why I have to keep explaining this, but...I'm not siding with ANYONE. I've said from the beginning that the writers deserve more money. But neither you nor anyone else have been able to rationalize how it's better for writers to create a situation where thousands of people get ZERO money just so they can get a few cents MORE money. How the **** can you say that is right?!
You're asking me why the studios don't just agree to terms - I don't know. But I'm not defending them. My argument has NOTHING to do with whether or not the writers deserve the money or whether or not the studios should pay it.
But I can just as easily take that and apply it to what I AM arguing - why don't the writers just agree to the studios terms to these poor people who have lost their jobs can put food on their table and feed their children??!! Do you seriously not understand this?
The studios would not be in business if they were handing out money and not getting anything in return. So why the hell would they want to continue paying salaries to people who are not doing any work?! Because they can?! Well **** me, they should pay me a salary too!
Re: The strike is on. The S is O!!
Lynx is exactly right on this which is why it's totally not fair to say that the writers are already getting enough. It's not our place to say.
But Lynx, that also goes for the studios. It's not your place to say that the studios have a lot of money and can afford to keep paying people even though they aren't producing work.
And furthermore, if you can argue that the studios have enough money that they can just give the writers the royalties they want, Why wouldn't you be consistent about it and say the writers make more than the cameramen, so why wouldn't they jsut get to work so that they cameramen can get paid?
Lynx is exactly right on this which is why it's totally not fair to say that the writers are already getting enough. It's not our place to say.
But Lynx, that also goes for the studios. It's not your place to say that the studios have a lot of money and can afford to keep paying people even though they aren't producing work.
And furthermore, if you can argue that the studios have enough money that they can just give the writers the royalties they want, Why wouldn't you be consistent about it and say the writers make more than the cameramen, so why wouldn't they jsut get to work so that they cameramen can get paid?
Lynx
Well-Known Member
Re: The strike is on. The S is O!!
Yes, and the studios are the ones that had the power to end it. They fired people instead of ending it. The writers didn't fire anyone.
I can't. And, honestly, they probably can't either. But, you refuse to believe that these people figured that the studios wouldn't do such a thing. I'm almost positive these people get a salary otherwise laying them off would have been self-defeating. The writers figured the strike would be long over before the studios would come to that. Hell, I guarantee they thought the studios wouldn't even consider letting it come to that.
And, to make that point, I didn't even consider it until it happened. Hell, I'm sure almost everyone in this thread had no idea until it happened. The writers were probably on the same page as we are.
The problem is. . .how were these writers going to make more money? The studios didn't want to pay. So, the writers went on strike and there were consequences.
Because I think the studios are in the wrong. And, from what I gather, so do you.
I've already gone over this. Of course they're trying to make money. Of course paying a salary to those who aren't working is bad business. Thing is, this could have been resolved early so no one would have been the worse for wear. They didn't. . .they chose to get rid of people instead of negotiating with the writers.
I'm not saying they should pay people to keep working. I'm saying they had the money to pay the writers. They could have avoided the strike altogether.
As for the writers pay versus cameraman pay argument, that's a catch-22. The writers felt they deserved more money so they went on strike. They didn't think about the cameramen and stagehands losing their job because they didn't think it would come to that.
Yes, and the studios are the ones that had the power to end it. They fired people instead of ending it. The writers didn't fire anyone.
I can't. And, honestly, they probably can't either. But, you refuse to believe that these people figured that the studios wouldn't do such a thing. I'm almost positive these people get a salary otherwise laying them off would have been self-defeating. The writers figured the strike would be long over before the studios would come to that. Hell, I guarantee they thought the studios wouldn't even consider letting it come to that.
And, to make that point, I didn't even consider it until it happened. Hell, I'm sure almost everyone in this thread had no idea until it happened. The writers were probably on the same page as we are.
The problem is. . .how were these writers going to make more money? The studios didn't want to pay. So, the writers went on strike and there were consequences.
Because I think the studios are in the wrong. And, from what I gather, so do you.
I've already gone over this. Of course they're trying to make money. Of course paying a salary to those who aren't working is bad business. Thing is, this could have been resolved early so no one would have been the worse for wear. They didn't. . .they chose to get rid of people instead of negotiating with the writers.
I'm not saying they should pay people to keep working. I'm saying they had the money to pay the writers. They could have avoided the strike altogether.
As for the writers pay versus cameraman pay argument, that's a catch-22. The writers felt they deserved more money so they went on strike. They didn't think about the cameramen and stagehands losing their job because they didn't think it would come to that.
Last edited:
Re: The strike is on. The S is O!!
The problem is that you think the "firing" (again, they were not fired) of the workers has anything to do with the negotiations between the studios and writers. It doesn't. It has to do with paying people for not working.
Again, one of two scenarios are happening here - either these workers are salary and the studios cannot pay them for NOT working, for which the writers are at fault because they created a condition in which these people could not work...
...or...
...the people are paid wages based on performance, in which case whether they are fired, laid off, or still considered employed, it doesn't matter because they aren't getting paid...because they are not doing a job...in which the writers are at fault for creating a situation in which these people could not work.
But again, you keep saying fired...they were NOT fired, at least according to the reports I read. They were laid off. And the very fact that they were laid off and not fired leads me to believe that the workers were salary and the first scenario is the one that is true. And if they are laid off they will be brought back to work when the conditions are favorable for them to be able to do so. That's the difference between being laid off and fired; they are two very different things.
Either way, the writers are wrong and at fault.
And again, the fact that they are wrong and at fault has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the following:
- whether they deserve the royalties they want
- whether the studios can or should pay those extra royalties
- how much money the studios have
- the quality of the writer's work
- what kind of cars the studio executives drive
Please do not bring up anyone getting fired in your responses to me because unless you can produce an article clearly stating that these people were fired and not laid off.
The problem is that you think the "firing" (again, they were not fired) of the workers has anything to do with the negotiations between the studios and writers. It doesn't. It has to do with paying people for not working.
Again, one of two scenarios are happening here - either these workers are salary and the studios cannot pay them for NOT working, for which the writers are at fault because they created a condition in which these people could not work...
...or...
...the people are paid wages based on performance, in which case whether they are fired, laid off, or still considered employed, it doesn't matter because they aren't getting paid...because they are not doing a job...in which the writers are at fault for creating a situation in which these people could not work.
But again, you keep saying fired...they were NOT fired, at least according to the reports I read. They were laid off. And the very fact that they were laid off and not fired leads me to believe that the workers were salary and the first scenario is the one that is true. And if they are laid off they will be brought back to work when the conditions are favorable for them to be able to do so. That's the difference between being laid off and fired; they are two very different things.
Either way, the writers are wrong and at fault.
And again, the fact that they are wrong and at fault has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the following:
- whether they deserve the royalties they want
- whether the studios can or should pay those extra royalties
- how much money the studios have
- the quality of the writer's work
- what kind of cars the studio executives drive
Please do not bring up anyone getting fired in your responses to me because unless you can produce an article clearly stating that these people were fired and not laid off.
Lynx
Well-Known Member
Re: The strike is on. The S is O!!
It was a direct result of that, though. If the strike had ended quickly, or not even begun, this wouldn't have happened. Which is my point.
I understand that. I'm using the word because using "laid off" after everything doesn't look right from a grammar standpoint.
E said:
It was a direct result of that, though. If the strike had ended quickly, or not even begun, this wouldn't have happened. Which is my point.
I understand that. I'm using the word because using "laid off" after everything doesn't look right from a grammar standpoint.
Last edited:
