One share, one vote!
 

At least it doesn't deny its ideology.

Unlike, say, the Old Grey Whore, WaPo, NBC, ABC, CBS or Google.

One share, one vote!
 

That is true.

The Times is a fucking joke. The Sulzbergers should be ashamed. But then, so should Murdoch for some of the one sided nonsense in the Journal. Oh, wait, neither of them is capable of feeling shame.

Wait till the Dems whack Google with an antitrust suit or start regulating the piss out of the internet. They'll think differently.

One share, one vote!
 

• The U. S. Supreme Court decision in Communication Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U. S. 735 (1988) . . . held that nonunion employees who are required to pay union dues as a condition of employment could not be forced to support union activities, such as political contributions, that are unrelated to workplace representation.

If they don't like it, they don't have to sign up. So what's the problem?

One share, one vote!
 

I don't mean to turn this into a labor law melee either, however in regard to the above statement, some would argue that becoming an "agency fee payer" or "core member" (i.e. - not "joining the union" but still being required to pay the portion of the dues that the union argues is necessary to "service" the contract) is not really a good solution. Most "agency fee payers" still end up paying roughly 92% of the regular union dues. They give up their right to vote at or even attend union meetings. While the union has a duty to fairly represent these non-member employees, a cynical person would argue that the union is not going to devote the same time and energy in representing these "free riders" as opposed to good union members.

In a Right to Work state, employees don't have to join the union or pay these agency fees. In other states, employees have the right to not join the union, but they still pay for it and don't necessarily reap all of the benefits.

aV

Caption, please.
 

One share, one vote!
 

Nonetheless, Slave's suggestion that workers who are represented by a union have no choice but to see their dues used to support political candidates with whom they disagree is, in a word, wrong. I happen to know that law, having had the opportunity to work on a related First Amendment case.

More labor stuff
 

I'm hearing a lot about how the WGA is winning over the American public (or whatever) w/r/t the strike thingy. How would this give them any tactical advantage in the negotiations?

More labor stuff
 

people could not give a shit. maybe they're winning over the LA puiblic?

More labor stuff
 

Because its all about leverage. Simply walking a picket line and posting funny videos on YouTube is probably not enough to get the companies off their bargaining positions. However, if you start throwing in some public support (negative news stories, inquires from advertisers, etc.) about how the companies are being heartless and cruel to the poor writers, then you begin to change the dynamic.

aV

More labor stuff
 

Aside from the issue of advertising in the world of DVR, I don't see where they are going to go, since it's all of the producers. It's not like it's one particular TV show, or one network/film company -- advertisers are going to say, hey, you are mean to your writers; we don't want to do product placement in . . . any . . . movies anymore? And people are going to say "I'm going to stop watching television and movies because producers are mean to writers"?

It would make sense to me if it were a particular portion of the entertainment industry, but given that it's basically all filmed entertainment . . .

I guess that maybe I can see how with e.g. steelworkers striking against GM/Ford/etc., people might stop buying from them, because there are viable alternatives. But there's not nearly enough non-US content at all, let alone non-US content that is in English and appeals to Americans, for there to be any alternative.

More labor stuff
 

The stagehands in TCOTU just settled [they were striking it can be done] Back to Matinee Day Mayhem...aren't golf umbrellas just for that express purpose?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007..._ticket-3.html

This is awesome: Tourist's guide to NYC:

http://ministryoftourismabatement.com/

OMG, how funny re: comment section

Comment from Hungry
Time: November 29, 2007, 8:43 am

""Oh. Look. There’s allegedly a big shiny tree on the other side of that tall building, so I think I will just stand here in the middle of the sidewalk with 34 of my closest friends, blocking the way for everyone else. Then once I’m done I’ll get really nutty and go to Applebee’s or Olive Garden, because there are only 6 of them within a mile of my home in East Nowheresville.""

More labor stuff
 

Aren't the studios deathly afraid of what you just wrote? That either people a) will discover other forms of entertainment (such as the internet (perhaps discover is not the right word. Maybe use more?) and/or b) simply not watch as many t.v. shows or movies? The last big writers strike pushed viewing audiences towards cable and pushed the networks towards reality t.v. shows. I don't know where the audiences may end up after this strike. And if the studios (in their polling/tracking) believe that negative press or negative attitudes could affect these numbers, then that will change the strategy.

aV

More labor stuff
 

The writers are touching upon a very timely issue. The venue and the medium are changing and they want a piece of it.

Similar to how recording labels are dying......the medium [electronic] which it is being distributed is changing........CDs are becoming more and more obsolete.

Although the writers have a point. They want a cut of the downloads etc.......back the medium changing...it is hard to feel truly sympathetic to them other then to feel dismissive as whiney bs.

More labor stuff
 

I just listened to a writer on NPR explaining that it doesn't, and that the union is ginning up public sentiment to rally its members who may be considering crossing picket lines.