The teachers' situation is even more serious, dire even, because they work in really low conditions, both in class and in terms of payments. You practically can't afford to support a family from a teacher's salary. The change in that regards is long due, and very justified.
One of my best memories from childhood is my dad, a public school teacher, going on strike for close to two months. He taught in my district so my teachers were also on strike and he would not let us cross the picket line to go to school. So we (including my best friend whose mom was also a public school teacher) got taught at home. Which mostly consisted of going on cool field trips. It was also a scary time because of the financial insecurity (we were on food stamps for a little while) and my parents came close to sending us to live with our grandparents in Texas when it looked like the strike was going to last for several more months.
I assumed that was the case, but since we have you here and posting right now, I thought I'd ask.
Well, it's a bit more complicated, of course. The university senior staff tries to protest the problematic situation of the higher education in Israel as a whole, but the most significant ways of improving that involve money and funding, so there you go.
With the teachers, it's, again, even more complicated. There are several Buffistas who are teachers, for all sorts of ages and grades, in several countries, and I've been reading their stories for some time now. The teachers in Israel don't come even close, in terms of job conditions as well as relative salaries, the way the profession is treated, anything at all, to the equivalents I've been reading about here. Almost everybody in Israel looks down upon teachers, and they're more often than not mocked for asking for better salaries or work conditions (by people who, I feel safe to guess, would not be able to teach an average class for a single hour, let a lone a whole day, let alone a whole year).
Um, why, is that a soapbox I'm standing on? Oops. Sorry about that. I'm not a teacher (though several of my friends are), and the strike damages a project of mine, and still, I find myself on barricades, defending the teachers, each time the subject comes up, even when that's not required. Sorry.
[Edit: lisa, that's really interesting to read! I had no idea about that.]
The last two paragraphs of this article ( [link] ) sum up the AMPTP's main gripes:
Studios argue that it is too early to know how much money they can make from offering entertainment on the Internet and on cell phones, iPods and other devices.
Like any new venture, there are going to be a lot of unknowns. Paying writers a residual may actually help them control initial costs. Using the excuse that they don't know how profitable a venture will be should only be effective on demands for a higher scale.
Producers are also uncertain whether consumers prefer a pay-per-view model over an advertising-supported system. They say they want the economic flexibility to experiment as consumer habits change in reaction to technology.
Either model will either be profitable or not profitable. Writers want residuals on the profits. Economic flexibility is another way of saying they want the milk for free so they don't have to worry about satisfying the cow.
This is why the WGA is on strike. Because the AMPTP actually believes this horseshit.
"We don't know how much we're going to make so we can't pay our employees."
Sure, that makes sense. I know that's what my firm does.
t eye. roll. for. evah.
Like any new venture, there are going to be a lot of unknowns. Paying writers a residual may actually help them control initial costs. Using the excuse that they don't know how profitable a venture will be should only be effective on demands for a higher scale.
It's a bullshit excuse in any case because it's not like iTunes (just for example) is some nebulous possibility for the future - there is content for sale online right now. Whether or not it's a successful revenue stream doesn't change the fact consumers and advertisers are paying for online content. Some of that money is owed to the content creators, end of story.
I think they're, ultimately, querying how much money is owed to content creators.
Right, but why not pick a non-zero number now to satisfy the writers' demands? They can always renegotiate later, can't they?
0.001%?
I can't speak from any WGA experience (uh, obviously), but from what I've seen with unions and corporations before, they'll make a non-zero number offer at some point soon, and it'll be absolutely shite.
NYT article on the picket line in NY: [link]
