I don't endorse unionization for all situations. But in industries where the majority of the hiring decision is funneled into a very small pool of tight-knit players, it becomes the only tool available to the worker.

I had a business law professor explain it as the difference between tigers and kittens. Some people are more aggressive than others, and likely don't need the kind of help. More nurturing professions, such as nursing and teaching, often benefit the most from having these. Without a strong union presence.. let's be honest.. many of them would roll over because they care so much about the people they're taking care of. Many creatives have the same problem too -- and until someone points out that there's something they're getting screwed on, many would gladly continue just doing what they love without seeking greater benefit.

I don't consider myself pro-union, nor do I consider myself anti-union. I just see it as just the way things are. There are many aspects to unionization that I don't care for, especially how long and arduous negotiations can be, the whole "vote this way" attitude - but there are others that are positive, bringing voices to people that might not always speak up.

I really like the way that LSPE put it, for I think that's a huge part of the issue on why this is taking so long.

I'm going to be doing pretty well for the duration of the strike as I now have about 150 movies I haven't watched before sitting on shelves to my right. Plus, there are probably a bajillionty awesome classic movies I have yet to see.

Oh, and I've got a kitteh.

So long as I am involved in the discourse, yes.

There's also an assumption here that those in charge of hiring decisions care about the long-term cost/benefit to the company. In my experience that isn't the case.

The last time I worked for a company during layoffs, the financial wizards literally picked the 4 employees earning the highest salaries because it would have the biggest immediate effect on the bottom line and therefore benefit the financial wizards in the short term. I've been on hiring committees where the most qualified candidate, who would have been a tremendous asset, was rejected in favor of someone who would do a so-so job, but cost a lot less. Heck, in the past few months I've listened to my boss tell me how lucky they are to have someone as skilled as yours truly doing what I do for the salary they pay me.

It's my experience that price trumps quality most of the time. Some might call it the Walmart effect. The benefit to the bottom line can be admired on a spreadsheet right away, while the detrimental effects of lesser skill can take longer to manifest. (And many managers figure that by that time they'll have advanced out of the responsibility zone.)

All I can say is that everytime I pass the CBS, WB and Disney strikers I think the same thing: "Not a good-looking one in the bunch." Call me shallow but, hey, we all see what we want to see or don't see.
:D

Hey, why do you think they're writing, not acting?

You're all right, you're all wrong, everything is true and false at the same time to some degree. Some companies strive for excellence in their employees, some look for inexpensive yet crappy labor. Some unions do great work, some are extorionists. Some strikers deserve to be canned, some are pleading for fair treatment. Saying that's it's all one way or all the other way is, with all due respect, hogwash. It's all very depressing. Someone bring me some drugs.

lol! :D
"You have a face for radio." - That's a quote from a film. I don't know which one...

It's Quiz Show.

oh wow...is this still going on?

:p