I usually take a dim view of anyone who is telling union leadership that "now is not the time to threaten to strike," but I've been reading Wil Wheaton long enough to not only cut him some slack on the SAG strike issue, but adopt his position whole-heartedly.
For those who don't know Wil at all or only know him as a Star Trek nerd, he is hugely pro-labor and pro-union. I remember really liking when he was pissing his pants about the possibility that professional poker players were thinking of forming a union, as they began realizing that the Travel Channel, thw World Poker Tour, and ESPN were making way more money showing their poker exploits to the world than they were for playing. Wil took some heat from his commenters (always hurts my soul when lefty nerds are also vehemently anti-union), but he stuck with it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Did you go through the comments? There are some pretty compelling counter-arguments down the way, and I actually find myself leaning against Wil's position (which is not to say he still isn't rockingly pro-union).
Even without having read the comments, I started getting uneasy when he asserted that periods of economic hardship are not the times for labor militancy. You and I both know that's bullshit, and if he wasn't in the heat of the moment, it's something I'm betting Wil would recognize too.
I know where Wil's coming from - asking one's fellow workers to willingly put hardship on themselves and other people they care about is never easy. But again, reading the comments at his place written by people who have far more knowledge of the on-the-ground politics and history than myself, I'd have to disagree with my two brothers here and say that now is the time for militancy.
Oh, how that Lachance has grown up fast, he is hardly recognizable.
I was all on board with Wil until I read some of the counter-arguments and did my own thinking on the matter. The "times are hard" and thus "now is not the time" are two phrases an activists should never put next to each other. Actually I find it even more compelling to be a labor militant when times are bad. I was having this very conversation with some fine grads a couple of nights ago and thought 1. when the economy sucks the bosses are more likely to put the squeeze on and claim no money and thus your actions as a union will likely have to go to the next level. 2. When you do go to that level public sympathy is likely to be more favorable to the cause. Though of course the union will be on a very slippery slope, the demands must look as "protection" from take-a-ways and not "greedy unionists" demanding "too much."
While the right has done some fine work attacking the UAW and card check, I have been surprised by the larger than expected support on the left and the not so center center. I read more and more articles lambasting CEO pay and extravagances lately and I suspect the economy has a little to do with it.
Both: Reading your comments, I expected to look at the comments at Wil's site and see some devastating counter-arguments, but I don't see them.
Yes, I agree that difficult economic times should not mean a down turn in labor militancy or expectations (although it should be noted that just about every laborite who has not sat in the 3544 office organizing grievances disagrees on that score), but I don't think that's what Wil is saying. I think he is trying to say that in an industry as inter-connected as the entertainment industry, a strike by the barons of that industry - actors in this case - puts all the little guys out of work as well. In difficult economic times, it might behoove the actors to show some solidarity and not put everyone else out of work.
Now there is the guy who has writer friends who say that they support an actor's strike 100%, so there is some counter-argument there. I think the counter-counter is that just because someone is willing to support your strike to their own detriment doesn't mean that you should do it.
As for the public image thing...I think some of the thinking here is that the writers took a hit publicity-wise. I don't know. In my world there was big support, but I got the sense on the various little media boards I look at that most people were of the opinion that the writers currently have the cushiest jobs in the world and should shut the fuck up and write. I can only imagine that actors would have a bigger hurdle.
Also, a couple of the commenters seem to think that this letter means that the signers wouldn't support a strike. I don't think that's necessarily the case. Internal dissent is tricky in a public forum, but I think the intent was to call on the leadership to re-think before moving ahead. As democratic unionists, I think we should nominally support the rank-and-file calling leadership out.
Of course the most annoying thing about the comments on Wil site are the countless people who feel the need to write in to tell Wil how awesome he is and everything he writes and does is. It's annoying because I am jealous.
The three counter-arguments that swayed me were 1) that the AMPTP is not bargaining from a position of strength (although I'll admit that I'm not insider-y enough to know how true that claim is), 2) that the AMPTP has screwed the SAG over on similar issues in the past (promising to re-bargain certain provisions and then never following through), and 3) that the letter comes from A-list actors for whom residuals are not that big a deal, unlike the vast majority of the acting profession for whom this could be the difference between life and debt.
On that last point, the actors' colleagues in the entertainment industry know that most actors work at or near scale and that this is a huge issue, so I'm guessing they understand the importance of the issue and would be supportive of their brothers and sisters. Add to that that this sort of public display of internal discussion can actually help generate sympathy for the actors, showing that they're not being cavalier about the decision.
That said, I think Wil is coming from the right place, and I have no doubt that if his brothers and sisters vote to strike, he'll be on the picket lines with them. Please don't take my comments as an indictment of either him or you. Like I said, the decision to strike is the toughest decision any union member will make, and my already great respect for Wil has grown by leaps and bounds for his willingness to give us a from-the-heart peek behind the scenes. He's a credit to his profession and to his union.
Some of his commenters, though... uh, yeah.
Post a Comment