Not being the worst tactic used by companies to break strikes doesn't make it good or even OK.

Nor should it lessen the condemnation faced by these companies.

EDIT: To be clear, I expect a company's executive team in the 21st century to act ethically and with even the smallest bit of compassion for their coworkers. I do not expect them to act like some entitled plantation owner in the late 19th century.

And if that's me being naive, it's a naivety I'll gladly take to the grave.

This not some dirty tactic, it is specifically how all breakdowns in employer/union negotiations go. Union withdraws their labour until their demands are met, employer doesn't agree until their demands are met. As time goes on, both lose money, both parties are betting the other party will compromise in a beneficial way before their side does.

If you don't approve of this, you don't approve of unionization. Because this is how it works.

You seem to misunderstand what unionisation is. The current state of things has been reached as kind of a gentleman's agreement. If employers want to revert to life threatening solutions, unions will revert to life threatening solutions too. Sequestration, destruction, tarring, and other fun things.

But then again, defenestration of a bunch of execs might just be the exact thing the world needs to put some fear back into these ghouls again.

> You seem to misunderstand what unionisation is. The current state of things has been reached as kind of a gentleman's agreement. If employers want to revert to life threatening solutions, unions will revert to life threatening solutions too. Sequestration, destruction, tarring, and other fun things.

Weird, my definition of "unionization" is "workers bargaining collectively". It doesn't involve any veiled threats of violence.

That is what it means, but it's an arrangement that replaces the previously "we'll resolve this with violence" situation. If one party wants to dump the "new" way of doing things, mostly likely it just goes back to the "old" way.

Violence begets violence. Pretty simple.

Life threatening solutions? Let’s cut the hyperbole please. You are the one making threats here, no one else is.

They have made an offer of employment to the union, following the legal framework in the country.

It’s the same predicament any striking worker has. Each party is applying significant financial pressure on each other to get what they hope will be a better deal than the current offer.

How… how do you think this works in other strikes?

"It's legal" is about the most basic, dogshit argument you can ever use. When there are livelihoods at stake, when we have emails of execs explicitly wanting to wait it out so their writers get evicted, when Bob Iger makes the GDP of a small African country and refuses to give anything even close to acceptable, it's not a threat of violence. It is actual violence, but you've been conditioned to only see violence as the physical act.

Abusing the massive wealth imbalance to force people back to work under your own terms is violence. They should be happy people haven't actually resorted to violence in return.

How it works in other strikes? It'll depend on the context. Your small company that can't afford everyone striking for a month will go to the negotiation table and reach a deal. Other companies? In my lifetime, I have seen offices destroyed, CEOs sequestrated. And you know what? It worked.

> As time goes on, both lose money, both parties are betting the other party will compromise in a beneficial way before their side does.

Historically when the key demand is "we want fair pay" versus "we are not giving you another dime", this strategy from the employer ends in violence.

So, not a great plan for employers tbh

> Not being the worst tactic used by companies to break strikes doesn't make it good or even OK.

I mean, I'm very pro-union rights, but I think in this case, it's pretty simple. If you don't work, you don't get paid. Both the studios and the unions are playing by the rules, here.

It may not produce a fair outcome (because the distribution of power in society isn't fair), but it is at least a fair process.

And the union should really have put aside more money to fund a longer strike.

It’s nowhere near a fair process! If it was a fair process, the substantial power difference wouldn’t be as great

"absolutely gentille" and "strike-breaking" seems like weird ways to describe studios refusing to accept the union's offer, as if they're expected to accept whatever that the union offers.

The studios haven't even come to the negotiation table in the 70 days of the WGA's strike. Their entire plan is waiting them out so they'll accept a worse offer.

>The studios haven't even come to the negotiation table in the 70 days of the WGA's strike.

What's the point of coming to the negotiation table when the other side's demands is so far from what you're willing to offer?

>Their entire plan is waiting them out so they'll accept a worse offer.

It takes two to make a deal. By refusing to accept a deal, both sides' are hoping to inflict damage to the other side so they can get what they want. You might have your own opinions about which side has the more reasonable offer and is therefore in the "right", but both sides are essentially trying to do the same thing.

> What's the point of coming to the negotiation table when the other side's demands is so far from what you're willing to offer?

Uh, does this situation not fit the dictionary definition of negotiation? Such a gulf in demands/desires/position between the sides necessitates negotiation and compromise. The institution saying "lol fuck them, we'll starve 'em out" is monstrous in that context, imo.

>> What's the point of coming to the negotiation table when the other side's demands is so far from what you're willing to offer?

>Uh, does such a situation not fit the dictionary definition of negotiation?

There's nothing in the definition of "negotiation" that necessitates compromise. Moreover, negotiation isn't an end goal in and of itself. The point is to reach an agreement (ie. contract), and the very definition of a contract is that it's voluntary. That means walking away is an entirely valid response.

They haven't come to the table because they know the writers will not accept the offer. What's the point in wasting time?

Its such a shame that the laws of the universe only allow the studios to make that one offer they want to bring to the table.

The same could be said for the union. Why should either side be forced to make concessions?

Same argument could be made in the vein of why should one side be forced to accept the other's demands unilaterally? Thus the deadlock and the strike. After all, each side making concessions is how this usually works.

Indeed, and if both sides want to wait each other out, it seems like that's what will happen, only that it will end much worse on one side, it seems.

That is just a silly argument. Yeah, they aren't hiring private armies and shooting at the striking workers, but that doesn't mean it's gentille.

Has anyone run the numbers on how long this might take? I know there's a lot of people in both striking unions who aren't super wealthy, but don't know what the spread is.

I'm fully expecting more dogmatic/richer members to bankroll the strike to prevent it breaking. I'm guessing through loans or something.