[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: HP & DH Movie

[OctobersChild48 at aol.com]

Carol:

Then  maybe Hollywood needs to be restructured, and real jobs that
don't require  strikes to get fair compensation ought to be made
available to writers. If  a writer works for a magazine, not freelance
but as an employee, he doesn't  have to strike, does he? And, as I
said, teachers can belong to a  professional organization or a union.
Writers, as professionals, ought to  have the same choice. Strikes
began as a tool for manual laborers, not  white-collar workers. And Big
Labor can be as corrupt as Big  Business.

I'd appreciate not having my perspective belittled with "Why  is that
so hard for you to understand?"

Carol, whose distaste for  strikes has not abated one whit
 
Sandy responds:
 
I don't have the time or inclination to break this down  sentence by sentence 
so I will respond in totale. 
 
My intention was not to belittle your perspective,  as I hope it was not your 
intention to belittle me with your above  statement, although I feel like you 
have. And my emotions are running high right  now so I need to keep myself in 
check.
 
What makes the writers so much better than me, or any  other working person 
for that matter? I am a union worker who in the very recent  past was faced 
with a strike and just lucky enough to have it averted at the  very last minute. 
I take offense at your statement "real jobs that don't require  strikes to get 
fair compensation ought to be made available to writers." Real  jobs that 
don't require strikes to get fair compensation ought to be available  to 
*everyone*. What makes the writers so special? My take on this statement,  including 
the white-collar comment, is that it is okay for me, the lowly cashier  at your 
local grocery store to go on strike, because after all I am only a  manual 
laborer, but the writers are so far above that. The writers are on strike  
because they belong to a union, and they belong to a union because somewhere  along 
the line they decided they needed a union to represent their fair  interests. 
Unions don't just walk into a workplace and take over; they have to  be 
allowed in, and the workers are the ones who allow them. 
 
I can't argue with Big Labor corruption, nor am I trying  to. The union I 
belong to, while not corrupt, is just as money-grubbing as the  company I work 
for. I don't particularly enjoy paying the dues that I do. But  without the 
union I would be making minimum wage and have no benefit package at  all, just 
like all of the employees at the store across the street from the one  I work at. 
With the union I make a good wage, have medical benefits, paid  holidays, 
paid vacation and a pension. It's too bad the unions are not in every  workplace 
where minimum wage and no benefits are the norm. For whatever reason,  the 
writers felt they needed a union, regardless of for whom and why unions were  
originally formed. 
 
I have no problem with your distaste for strikes, nor am  I asking you to 
embrace them. I don't like them either. I am merely trying to  point out that 
there are times they just can't be avoided, which I feel you  really don't seem 
to understand. My intention has not been to offend but rather  to enlighten. 
This is a situation that hits close to home for me. No one  wants to go on 
strike, and they don't unless there is no other option. Having  high ideals gets 
you nowhere, nor does waiting for your employer to do the right  thing on their 
own. And putting workers into different classes only muddies the  water. 
 
Sandy, who wishes unions and strikes were not necessary,  buy who knows 
better.
 
 








**************Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.     
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]