Letterman Makes A Deal With Striking Writers

[Epicurus8a]

David Letterman’s Worldwide Pants has entered a deal with the striking Writer’s Guild of America that will let writers on the show return to work Wednesday. The WGA waiver also covers Craig Ferguson's series (owned by Letterman).

Click the link below for the full story:
http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/12/letterman_enters_deal_with_wri.php

[Krispy Kritter]

There are several other people and a few movie studios making similar deals in order to get people back to work.

[Epicurus8a]

I've heard about some of the deals... Tom Cruise was one of them. For everyones sake, lets hope this matter is solved quickly and fairly. Until its resolved we should all boycott TV 24/7!!! Maybe then the fat-cat studio Execs will get the message.

[Mylan23]

I agree - this should be resolved as soon as possible. How could the very people who make all these creative works exist not get the credit and payment they deserve??

[thecoalman]

Sorry but I have no sympathy for striking workers that are already making a decent wage. It's no longer the company taking advantage of the worker but the worker taking advantage of the company, unions undoubtedly have a place in society where workers are being taken advantage of but this is less and less a problem. When someone is making $40-$50 an hour or a salary well above the cost of living that allows them to live very comfortably they don't need union representation, they need a reality check. They should have considered what they are going to make before taking the job. There's probably thousands or hundreds of thousands that could and would do the same job for what they are making and be happy to do it.

[MeDiCo_BrUjO]

I think TV is already boycotted..... there's nothing to watch there right now!

It SUCKS!

[Epicurus8a]

Sorry but I have no sympathy for striking workers that are already making a decent wage. It's no longer the company taking advantage of the worker but the worker taking advantage of the company, unions undoubtedly have a place in society where workers are being taken advantage of but this is less and less a problem. When someone is making $40-$50 an hour or a salary well above the cost of living that allows them to live very comfortably they don't need union representation, they need a reality check. They should have considered what they are going to make before taking the job. There's probably thousands or hundreds of thousands that could and would do the same job for what they are making and be happy to do it.

Responsiblity starts at the top, PERIOD. No one on the planet deserves to be paid 20, 30, 40, or 50 million dollars per year - and yet thats what the greedy studio execs and CEOs receive. Meanwhile they tell the little guys to "do as I say; not as I do," and to "shut up and take what you're given." IMO, there is nothing fair and equitable this.

Strikes hurt everyone, and no one ever wants to experience one. But that doesn't mean fat-cats should be allowed receive a bigger portion of the pie while the little guys receive a smaller portion. Moreover, if this business trend continues, the middle class will be "eradicated" by the end of this century. IMO, there is nothing fair and equitable about this either.

More CEOs need to follow the brilliant business philosophy of Jim Senegal (Coscto's CEO). "Customers come first, employees come second, vendors come third, and share holders come fourth." Futhermore Senegal receives compensation of only $350,000 per year. By following this practice prices are kept low for everyone, and employees are happy too. Obviously Senegal is a man who understands and cares about the future of his company and society in general.

Cheers to Letterman and Cruise. Jeers to Moonves, Eiger, Zuker, Wright, etc.

[thecoalman]

Responsiblity starts at the top, PERIOD. No one on the planet deserves to be paid 20, 30, 40, or 50 million dollars per year - and yet thats what the greedy studio execs and CEOs receive. Meanwhile they tell the little guys to "do as I say; not as I do," and to "shut up and take what you're given." IMO, there is nothing fair and equitable this.

Can't agree there, if a exec can make your company absurdly profitable they are worth whatever they want. What I can't agree with is all these looser CEO's putting companies into the toilets and taking a huge bonus with them right before they jump ship.

The one thing you are forgetting is that they are employees, they do not have to take these jobs if they don't want them. No one is forcing them to be employed there. If they find it so bad they should seek employment elsewhere. As I pointed out there is thousands of people more than willing to take jobs like that for even less than what they are making. Unions no longer represent the oppressed employee, they only represent employees in highly lucrative jobs.

That is the biggest issue I have, you don't see the union representative running to protect the guy making $10 an hour that does need union representation. They are only interested in representing high paying positions some of which are only high paying positions because of the union itself. Do you really think someone doing an unskilled job in an auto factory that kid out of high school can do is worth $40 or $50 an hour. It's not even close to the true value of their work, keep in mind I've done my share of shit jobs in my life too so I'm not talking out of my ass. The only jobs the unions are interested in are ones where they can suck large quantities of cash from the employees themselves. They are no different than the execs.

[Epicurus8a]

Coalman: While I don't agree with your opinion, I do respect your right to have one.

Like you I've had my share of crappy jobs. The worst one was for a guy who repeatedly cheated the workers in various ways, and then said, "sue me." Occasionally people did sue him and they always won, but then there were always appeals and the cases sometimes went on for years. My cousin (an attorney) says there are thousands of employers just like him - many are even worse. So, there is still a definite need for union representation in our country.

Maybe the writers do earn $40 - $50 per hour, but that doesn't mean they can afford the kind of expensive representation the studios can afford. Furthermore: as a direct result of budget cuts, down-sizing, out-sourcing (etc.) corporate America has grown richer while the average citizen has grown poorer. Few people have avoided this tragedy, and there's nothing equitable about that. But the fat-cats are happy...

Letterman, Cruise and a few others realize that talented workers are tough to find. They also realize that 'work' is a mutually beneficial endeavor. In other words, when one party profits, so does the other - and everyone benefits. IMO, its almost always the greedy, self-serving, back-stabbing guys at the top who are to blame for so called "labor problems." In truth the phrase should be "management problems."

Again, responsibility always starts at the top because workers often strive to emulate their superiors. (Think of it this way: How can an adult behave irresponsibly but expect their children to behave responsibly?) Therefore: CEOs & execs should set proper examples for business and society. They need to take huge salary cuts and pass on the savings to consumers. But since that will never happen we're all being punished by the lack of TV programs and by the higher costs of goods and services. Meanwhile Joe Average is trying figure out ways to stretch his ever shrinking dollar.

(BTW, I never said I was in favor of the strike. I said I was in favor of an equitable solution.)


Due to forum rules I can't discuss some of the more important points of this issue: politics and more...

[zzyzzx]

And I'm still not watching Letterman. I'd be happy to see the strike go on forwever so we can get some more reality TV for me to watch. That and I really don't have any sympathy for these writers. They deserve to be fired and replaced. Bah humbug.

[Epicurus8a]

Bah humbug.