Union Strike Question

[tvguy]

Regan was the best at handling unions!

Of course Reagan was. He had been the President of the Screen Actors Guild so he had experience from both sides.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

He is not in that book. He was the one trying to get to work and was having to wait while the captain checked his book.

Maybe I Missed your post, sorry.
Thought he was the guy not honoring jump seat agreements….

Those guys always pissed me off and I didn’t commute to work

 

[tony67]

I really hope that we don't end up with only AI written material.

With the stuff the writers are putting out - and the ridiculous number of remakes and the lack of talent (IMO). - I cant imagine that AI would be much worse than some of the She Hulk stuff Disney put out for example.

I bring that up as that writer was complaining about only get $396 in residuals (after getting paid to write it in the first place). I think $396 was too much. And good luck finding out what they were paid in advance for writing the episode. They don't want to mention that - its "on top of the undisclosed amount that he had already received for his staff work on the show."

 

[dizneegirl]

Last time the writers striked we ended up with reality TV. I really hope that we don't end up with only AI written material.

Would that really be any worse than The Kardashians (et cetera)?

 

[Lord Manhammer]

With the stuff the writers are putting out - and the ridiculous number of remakes and the lack of talent (IMO). - I cant imagine that AI would be much worse than some of the She Hulk stuff Disney put out for example.

I bring that up as that writer was complaining about only get $396 in residuals (after getting paid to write it in the first place). I think $396 was too much. And good luck finding out what they were paid in advance for writing the episode. They don't want to mention that - its "on top of the undisclosed amount that he had already received for his staff work on the show."

Actually the vast majority of staff writers for television get crappy wages. It's a misnomer that everyone who is on strike through WGA or SAG/AFTRA is wealthy.

 

[nancipants]

With the stuff the writers are putting out - and the ridiculous number of remakes and the lack of talent (IMO). - I cant imagine that AI would be much worse than some of the She Hulk stuff Disney put out for example.

I bring that up as that writer was complaining about only get $396 in residuals (after getting paid to write it in the first place). I think $396 was too much. And good luck finding out what they were paid in advance for writing the episode. They don't want to mention that - its "on top of the undisclosed amount that he had already received for his staff work on the show."

Because these shows are written/created by committee. Large IP projects are not written by one person or a small group. There is a lot of studio interference.

Just because you didn't like a show doesn't mean people don't deserve to get fairly paid for them. The compensation involved in streaming shows is just disgusting. It used to be that if you wrote for a hit show that got a lot of airplay in syndication, you would get residuals for the rest of your life. Now, writers for the show Suits, which was extremely popular on Netflix, barely get anything. That's just one example. Meanwhile, studios are making record profits.

 

[tony67]

Actually the vast majority of staff writers for television get crappy wages. It's a misnomer that everyone who is on strike through WGA or SAG/AFTRA is wealthy.

True - but the net worth of this person is 15 million so....

 

[tony67]

Because these shows are written/created by committee. Large IP projects are not written by one person or a small group. There is a lot of studio interference.

Just because you didn't like a show doesn't mean people don't deserve to get fairly paid for them. The compensation involved in streaming shows is just disgusting. It used to be that if you wrote for a hit show that got a lot of airplay in syndication, you would get residuals for the rest of your life. Now, writers for the show Suits, which was extremely popular on Netflix, barely get anything. That's just one example. Meanwhile, studios are making record profits.

Yeah - unfortunately streaming seems to be a failing business so there is no money to give.

Commercial TV has advertising and I don't think the subscriptions are making up for that lack of advertising - I think this is why Disney is really trying to push the version with commercials.

That said I known the studios also play games with the costs to pay people less - I'm not on their side - its just very disingenuous when you try to push that you only got 396 for an episode and avoid talking about what you got paid outside of that.

Yeah normally they get 10-20K in residuals as opposed to 396 - but streaming is an entirely different model not to mention the quality of it - which is subjective I know.

There are probably 1000 better examples of people who got next to nothing and are on strike and struggling and they are pushing this story with not a ton of context which just makes the average person who is struggling less likely to support them.

 

[kdonnel]

Yeah - unfortunately streaming seems to be a failing business so there is no money to give.

They are just not pricing it correctly.

If people don't want to watch commercials, steaming should be priced accordingly. If that means $350 a month then people will pick the $10 a month option that has unskippable commercials.

 

[nancipants]

Right. All these studios jumped headfirst into streaming services without realizing hey, what happens when we reach subscriber critical mass and don’t have commercials to subsidize? Some services are already pivoting to ad supported models.

 

[kdonnel]

Right. All these studios jumped headfirst into streaming services without realizing hey, what happens when we reach subscriber critical mass and don’t have commercials to subsidize? Some services are already pivoting to ad supported models.

It was probably the plan all along.

Price it in the beginning at a loss, attract a bunch of subscribers, then price it correctly knowing you will lose some subscribers but ultimately end up with the most subscribers possible as quickly as possible.

 

[tvguy]

It was probably the plan all along.

Price it in the beginning at a loss, attract a bunch of subscribers, then price it correctly knowing you will lose some subscribers but ultimately end up with the most subscribers possible as quickly as possible.

Unfortunately right now, people are very price sensitive. There are too many options now, so IMHO the services are going to have to step up their game on content before they have any hope of keeping subscribers with higher prices.

 

[Jwaire]

If people don't want to watch commercials, steaming should be priced accordingly. If that means $350 a month then people will pick the $10 a month option that has unskippable commercials.

Or just not subscribe. Or watch one of a dozen other streaming services that are cheaper. Or be about as entertained on YouTube or Tik Tok.

Not sure the new generation cares about Snow White, Cinderella or even Star Wars.

There's a lot of factors at play.

 

[tony67]

Or just not subscribe. Or watch one of a dozen other streaming services that are cheaper. Or be about as entertained on YouTube or Tik Tok.

Not sure the new generation cares about Snow White, Cinderella or even Star Wars.

There's a lot of factors at play.

Yeah lots of factors no doubt.

You can subscribe for one month and binge watch the shows you care about - its even easer with prime to add and remove channels and wait for deals on Amazon day and black Friday etc... - of course you pay for prime

The only reason I have Disney+ and Hulu is its free with my credit card.
I have Paramount+ because its free with Walmart+ - which is free with my credit card.
(The credit card is not cheap but has lots of perks)

I have Peacock because its free with Comcast Internet.
I have Netflix because its still free with my Comcast plan for some reason
I have Prime because its comes "free" with Prime for shipping.

I would not pay for any of these other than an occasional month here and there.
I find Prime to have the best content overall as they have a deep library with lots of older shows that sadly are better than most of the new stuff IMO.

When streaming first started it was actually really good. Netflix had the latest movies shortly after they were available on DVD - plus you got DVDs mailed to you for things that were not streaming.

Then Netflix lost most of that and started doing the original content which is mostly crap. - they seemed to go months without new releases.
Then the cable TV replacements came along - PlayStation Vue was a good value - at first - so much better than cable - there were others and they were reasonably priced and a better value than cable. The big savings was not paying the ridiculous local taxes, local fees and extra box charges.

Next everybody created their own streaming serviced and charged around $8 and they all had some of the content you wanted - this is where it all fell apart - too much fragmentation - to get what you used to have on cable (or Netflix) started costing as much as cable.

All the live streaming services raised the prices to the point where its just not worth it - its cost as much as cable - especially since you still have to go to cable to get internet - in many places Comcast has defacto exclusive deals where they have made it impossible for compaction to enter the market.
Then the streaming services raised the prices but still served up the same chum.

So now as the PP stated I mostly watch YouTube and really only pay for internet directly.

If people don't want to watch commercials, steaming should be priced accordingly. If that means $350 a month then people will pick the $10 a month option that has unskippable commercials.

Or they could create good content that people actual want to watch - If they created a good Star Wars series or a good Star Trek series people would be willing to subscribe. If the content was good no one would complain about $20 a month for the Disney+ Hulu package. Ahsoka is mindbogglingly bad from the little I could sit through - a Jedi that moved like a drunken yak. Long dramatic shots trying to be Kurosawa - but coming off as krindge.

Now in a desperate attempt to force people to Disney+ they are removing Bluey (and a ton of other stuff) from cable (at least for Spectrum) to force people to Disney+ - its not even a show they created - but they own the rights so fair enough.

This is another kick in the gut to the writers of these shows as well since it will reduce their residuals since all the content that would have been on spectrum is now only on Disney+

It was probably the plan all along.

It may have been - but I don't think its worked out for them - and for Disney this is on top of all the other bad decisions they have been making.

 

[nancipants]

Now in a desperate attempt to force people to Disney+ they are removing Bluey (and a ton of other stuff) from cable (at least for Spectrum) to force people to Disney+ - its not even a show they created - but they own the rights so fair enough.

Which is a weird move considering Bluey was already the number 1 show on Disney Plus last year. Like, of EVERY movie and show available, not just for kids. (And considering it comes out sooner in Australia, people can very easily pirate it.)


I'll somewhat disagree about streaming services not creating good content, because that's a very subjective argument. A ton of people disliked Andor but I think it's one of the best things Star Wars has ever created. Like previously said, I think the main problem is there are too many services, and people will get picky and choosy about what to subscribe to and when. They'll subscribe to service for a month to binge those shows, then cancel, pick another service, and repeat. Especially on the services that drop shows all at once, like Netflix and Amazon. Amazon offers other benefits, though, which helps them.

 

[tony67]

Which is a weird move considering Bluey was already the number 1 show on Disney Plus last year. Like, of EVERY movie and show available, not just for kids. (And considering it comes out sooner in Australia, people can very easily pirate it.)

True - but lots of not tech savvy folks who want to put their kid in front of the tv may have to subscribe - may be a smart move if you get them to sign up the the 1.99 a month for three months and get the subscriber numbers up for the quarter

I'll somewhat disagree about streaming services not creating good content, because that's a very subjective argument.

True - but for me there is very little really good content. Too many folks with big egos who think they can replace the current fan base of what ever show\character etc with a new fan base - but it rarely if ever works. May as well start fresh with a new character - but they don't have the talent for the most part - just rehash, reuse, rinse, repeat. But like you say it is all subjective - but the number's don't lie - although they can try to manipulate them as best they can.

BTW - I have heard Andor is good - I am not particularly a Star Wars fan so I did not watch it - I should - but again the numbers were not great from all reports.


I can only imagine what Disney will do to Firefly

 

[LuvOrlando]

Not sure it would be a great idea for a business to do this, I'd boycott a business that replaced it's union people in a heartbeat, lots of pro union people in the US so that is playing with fire and would not a great idea. Lots of school employees, hospital workers, teamsters, police the list goes on and on, I grew up in NYC which has LOTS of union people.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

At least from 2 days ago "Local auto workers have been instructed not to take action as part of the UAW International Strike"

"At this time Local 249 has NOT been instructed to take action in the UAW International Strike,” "The post said Local 249 has been asked to maintain strike readiness, but workers at the Ford factory in Claycomo and General Motors plant in Kansas City, Kan., have been told to report to work as previously scheduled."

However there is another local union for the GM one no word on what they have been told to do.

The Ford plant makes the F150 and the Ford Transit Van, the GM plant makes the Chevy Malibu and the Cadillac XT4

 

[Lord Manhammer]

At least from 2 days ago "Local auto workers have been instructed not to take action as part of the UAW International Strike"

"At this time Local 249 has NOT been instructed to take action in the UAW International Strike,” "The post said Local 249 has been asked to maintain strike readiness, but workers at the Ford factory in Claycomo and General Motors plant in Kansas City, Kan., have been told to report to work as previously scheduled."

However there is another local union for the GM one no word on what they have been told to do.

The Ford plant makes the F150 and the Ford Transit Van, the GM plant makes the Chevy Malibu and the Cadillac XT4

The UAW is intentionally staggering the locations for strike actions so as to throw off Management.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

The UAW is intentionally staggering the locations for strike actions so as to throw off Management.

Maybe maybe not, they had no issues participating in the 2019 strike. Unless you have insider information into the particular Union I mentioned yours is just speculation into their tactics. It sounds like from all local discussion the plants were not included in the initial strikes, as they said they are prepared to do so though. The Wentzville location over in STL area is part of it. Personal opinion but the biggest impact would be to have everyone do it at once as that would be the most devastating but hey that's just my opinion. All I was doing with my comment was giving information into the plants local to me.