[B5JMS] WGA Strike 90%+ vote to strike

Mon Oct 22 04:41:49 EDT 2007

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Charles French <charlesfrench at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 03:07:21 -0000
Lines: 14

http://www.wga.org/subpage_member.aspx?id=2204

Prepare for a long, nasty fight folks.

Joe, I'm sure I speak for everyone here, we're with you and all the
other writers in this.

STRIKE!!!!

Peace,
Charles

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Lance Corporal \"Hammer\" Schultz" <starfist at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:12:51 -0500
Lines: 13

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 03:07:21 -0000, Charles French wrote:

> Joe, I'm sure I speak for everyone here, we're with you and all the
> other writers in this.

No, you don't.

-- 
Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
Promote someone else.
. 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Josh Hill <usereplyto at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 13:19:40 -0400
Lines: 19

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:12:51 -0500, "Lance Corporal \"Hammer\"
Schultz" <starfist at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 03:07:21 -0000, Charles French wrote:
>
>> Joe, I'm sure I speak for everyone here, we're with you and all the
>> other writers in this.
>
>No, you don't.

Well, then, count me as with the writers. From what I've seen, the
studios' proposal is a travesty.

-- 
Josh

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals.
We know now that it is bad economics." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Lance Corporal \"Hammer\" Schultz" <starfist at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:19:47 -0500
Lines: 32

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 13:19:40 -0400, Josh Hill wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:12:51 -0500, "Lance Corporal \"Hammer\"
> Schultz" <starfist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 03:07:21 -0000, Charles French wrote:
>>
>>> Joe, I'm sure I speak for everyone here, we're with you and all the
>>> other writers in this.
>>
>>No, you don't.
> 
> Well, then, count me as with the writers. From what I've seen, the
> studios' proposal is a travesty.

Unions are an anachronism.  They have long since ceased to serve the
purpose of preventing labor abuse.  They now exist to perpetuate
themselves as institutions and nothing more.  Without continually
bringing up "issues" over which to strike these institutions would be
(rightly) regarded as irrelevant.

Being intimidated into joining a union just to work should bother
anyone who values individual liberties.  The writer's guild may or may
not be as "bad" as the break-your-kneecaps labor unions, but the sin
of abdicating your individuality to a collective will is the same
nonetheless.

-- 
Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
Promote someone else.
. 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Jon Schild <jjs at xmission.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:13:39 -0700
Lines: 51

Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 13:19:40 -0400, Josh Hill wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:12:51 -0500, "Lance Corporal \"Hammer\"
>>Schultz" <starfist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 03:07:21 -0000, Charles French wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Joe, I'm sure I speak for everyone here, we're with you and all the
>>>>other writers in this.
>>>
>>>No, you don't.
>>
>>Well, then, count me as with the writers. From what I've seen, the
>>studios' proposal is a travesty.
> 

> Unions are an anachronism.  They have long since ceased to serve the
> purpose of preventing labor abuse.  They now exist to perpetuate
> themselves as institutions and nothing more.  Without continually
> bringing up "issues" over which to strike these institutions would be
> (rightly) regarded as irrelevant.

I will agree with you in most cases. The ones my father and 
father-in-law belonged to were certainly worthless. About the only ones 
left that have any meaning are the ones like WGA, where the "employees" 
are independent individuals with no power and the "employers" are very 
powerful and have no ethics.

> Being intimidated into joining a union just to work should bother
> anyone who values individual liberties.  The writer's guild may or may
> not be as "bad" as the break-your-kneecaps labor unions, but the sin
> of abdicating your individuality to a collective will is the same
> nonetheless.

Unions like to claim that if they didn't exist, the poor working man 
would get paid 50 cents per hour. In most cases that is nonsense. I 
think that TV networks would actually try that if they could.

-- 
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us 
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
         -- Galileo Galilei

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Josh Hill <usereplyto at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:32:24 -0400
Lines: 59

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:13:39 -0700, Jon Schild <jjs at xmission.com>
wrote:

>
>
>Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 13:19:40 -0400, Josh Hill wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:12:51 -0500, "Lance Corporal \"Hammer\"
>>>Schultz" <starfist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 03:07:21 -0000, Charles French wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Joe, I'm sure I speak for everyone here, we're with you and all the
>>>>>other writers in this.
>>>>
>>>>No, you don't.
>>>
>>>Well, then, count me as with the writers. From what I've seen, the
>>>studios' proposal is a travesty.
>> 
>
>> Unions are an anachronism.  They have long since ceased to serve the
>> purpose of preventing labor abuse.  They now exist to perpetuate
>> themselves as institutions and nothing more.  Without continually
>> bringing up "issues" over which to strike these institutions would be
>> (rightly) regarded as irrelevant.
>
>I will agree with you in most cases. The ones my father and 
>father-in-law belonged to were certainly worthless. About the only ones 
>left that have any meaning are the ones like WGA, where the "employees" 
>are independent individuals with no power and the "employers" are very 
>powerful and have no ethics.
>
>> Being intimidated into joining a union just to work should bother
>> anyone who values individual liberties.  The writer's guild may or may
>> not be as "bad" as the break-your-kneecaps labor unions, but the sin
>> of abdicating your individuality to a collective will is the same
>> nonetheless.
>
>Unions like to claim that if they didn't exist, the poor working man 
>would get paid 50 cents per hour. In most cases that is nonsense. I 
>think that TV networks would actually try that if they could.

It was certainly true before there were unions: in some cases,
employees were literally worked to death. And non-union companies like
Wal-Mart pay their people miserable salaries. In some states, Wal-Mart
employees have signed up for Medicaid because they don't get medical
insurance.

-- 
Josh

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals.
We know now that it is bad economics." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Jon Schild <jjs at xmission.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:03:00 -0700
Lines: 73

Josh Hill wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:13:39 -0700, Jon Schild <jjs at xmission.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>>Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 13:19:40 -0400, Josh Hill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:12:51 -0500, "Lance Corporal \"Hammer\"
>>>>Schultz" <starfist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 03:07:21 -0000, Charles French wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Joe, I'm sure I speak for everyone here, we're with you and all the
>>>>>>other writers in this.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, you don't.
>>>>
>>>>Well, then, count me as with the writers. From what I've seen, the
>>>>studios' proposal is a travesty.
>>>
>>>Unions are an anachronism.  They have long since ceased to serve the
>>>purpose of preventing labor abuse.  They now exist to perpetuate
>>>themselves as institutions and nothing more.  Without continually
>>>bringing up "issues" over which to strike these institutions would be
>>>(rightly) regarded as irrelevant.
>>
>>I will agree with you in most cases. The ones my father and 
>>father-in-law belonged to were certainly worthless. About the only ones 
>>left that have any meaning are the ones like WGA, where the "employees" 
>>are independent individuals with no power and the "employers" are very 
>>powerful and have no ethics.
>>
>>>Being intimidated into joining a union just to work should bother
>>>anyone who values individual liberties.  The writer's guild may or may
>>>not be as "bad" as the break-your-kneecaps labor unions, but the sin
>>>of abdicating your individuality to a collective will is the same
>>>nonetheless.
>>
>>Unions like to claim that if they didn't exist, the poor working man 
>>would get paid 50 cents per hour. In most cases that is nonsense. I 
>>think that TV networks would actually try that if they could.
> 
> It was certainly true before there were unions: in some cases,
> employees were literally worked to death. And non-union companies like
> Wal-Mart pay their people miserable salaries. In some states, Wal-Mart
> employees have signed up for Medicaid because they don't get medical
> insurance.

I keep hearing this, but people I know personally who work at Wal-Mart 
are all happy with it. They report NONE of the supposed abuses that 
activists are always talking about. I think unions are just spreading 
lies about how horrible it is to work without having union dues forced 
out of your pocket. They see how much power they could get by bringing 
down a company that large, and they want it.

-- 
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us 
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
         -- Galileo Galilei

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Josh Hill <usereplyto at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:29:08 -0400
Lines: 49

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:03:00 -0700, Jon Schild <jjs at xmission.com>
wrote:

>Josh Hill wrote:

>> It was certainly true before there were unions: in some cases,
>> employees were literally worked to death. And non-union companies like
>> Wal-Mart pay their people miserable salaries. In some states, Wal-Mart
>> employees have signed up for Medicaid because they don't get medical
>> insurance.
>
>I keep hearing this, but people I know personally who work at Wal-Mart 
>are all happy with it. They report NONE of the supposed abuses that 
>activists are always talking about. I think unions are just spreading 
>lies about how horrible it is to work without having union dues forced 
>out of your pocket. They see how much power they could get by bringing 
>down a company that large, and they want it.

According to a web site I found:

In 2001, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on
average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861. The 2001 poverty
line for a family of three was $14,630. ["Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?",
Business Week, 10/6/03, US Dept of Health and Human Services 2001
Poverty Guidelines, 2001] 

A 2003 wage analysis reported that cashiers, the second most common
job, earn approximately $7.92 per hour and work 29 hours a week. This
brings in annual wages of only $11,948. ["Statistical Analysis of
Gender Patterns in Wal-Mart's Workforce", Dr. Richard Drogin 2003] 
Wal-Mart Associates don't earn enough to support a family 

The average two-person family (one parent and one child) needed
$27,948 to meet basic needs in 2005, well above what Wal-Mart reports
that its average full-time associate earns. Wal-Mart claimed that its
average associate earned $9.68 an hour in 2005. That would make the
average associate's annual wages $17,114. ["Basic Family Budget
Calculator" online at www.epinet.org] 

http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/

It seems they're paying poverty-level wages.

-- 
Josh

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals.
We know now that it is bad economics." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Carl" <cengman7 at hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:41:33 -0500
Lines: 63

"Josh Hill" <usereplyto at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gfskh39lal1sco0c1976ejm6a7np7d6531 at 4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:03:00 -0700, Jon Schild <jjs at xmission.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>>> It was certainly true before there were unions: in some cases,
>>> employees were literally worked to death. And non-union companies like
>>> Wal-Mart pay their people miserable salaries. In some states, Wal-Mart
>>> employees have signed up for Medicaid because they don't get medical
>>> insurance.
>>
>>I keep hearing this, but people I know personally who work at Wal-Mart
>>are all happy with it. They report NONE of the supposed abuses that
>>activists are always talking about. I think unions are just spreading
>>lies about how horrible it is to work without having union dues forced
>>out of your pocket. They see how much power they could get by bringing
>>down a company that large, and they want it.
>
> According to a web site I found:
>
> In 2001, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on
> average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861. The 2001 poverty
> line for a family of three was $14,630. ["Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?",
> Business Week, 10/6/03, US Dept of Health and Human Services 2001
> Poverty Guidelines, 2001]
>
> A 2003 wage analysis reported that cashiers, the second most common
> job, earn approximately $7.92 per hour and work 29 hours a week. This
> brings in annual wages of only $11,948. ["Statistical Analysis of
> Gender Patterns in Wal-Mart's Workforce", Dr. Richard Drogin 2003]
> Wal-Mart Associates don't earn enough to support a family
>
> The average two-person family (one parent and one child) needed
> $27,948 to meet basic needs in 2005, well above what Wal-Mart reports
> that its average full-time associate earns. Wal-Mart claimed that its
> average associate earned $9.68 an hour in 2005. That would make the
> average associate's annual wages $17,114. ["Basic Family Budget
> Calculator" online at www.epinet.org]
>
> http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/
>
> It seems they're paying poverty-level wages.

Those figures could be very misleading.  How many of those workers are high 
school students and not people trying to live on those wages?

The people that scream about minimum wages often misreport statistics as 
though every high school student working at McDonalds for minimum wage was 
trying to live off of $11,000 annually.  They aren't, nor are they doing 
without health care.  Trying to claim them as working poor is disingenuous 
at best.

Low end jobs are supposed to be stepping stones... you do them to get the 
money (and sometimes experience) that you need to move on to something 
better.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Josh Hill <usereplyto at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:30:41 -0400
Lines: 59

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:41:33 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7 at hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto at gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:gfskh39lal1sco0c1976ejm6a7np7d6531 at 4ax.com...

>> According to a web site I found:
>>
>> In 2001, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on
>> average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861. The 2001 poverty
>> line for a family of three was $14,630. ["Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?",
>> Business Week, 10/6/03, US Dept of Health and Human Services 2001
>> Poverty Guidelines, 2001]
>>
>> A 2003 wage analysis reported that cashiers, the second most common
>> job, earn approximately $7.92 per hour and work 29 hours a week. This
>> brings in annual wages of only $11,948. ["Statistical Analysis of
>> Gender Patterns in Wal-Mart's Workforce", Dr. Richard Drogin 2003]
>> Wal-Mart Associates don't earn enough to support a family
>>
>> The average two-person family (one parent and one child) needed
>> $27,948 to meet basic needs in 2005, well above what Wal-Mart reports
>> that its average full-time associate earns. Wal-Mart claimed that its
>> average associate earned $9.68 an hour in 2005. That would make the
>> average associate's annual wages $17,114. ["Basic Family Budget
>> Calculator" online at www.epinet.org]
>>
>> http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/
>>
>> It seems they're paying poverty-level wages.
>
>Those figures could be very misleading.  How many of those workers are high 
>school students and not people trying to live on those wages?
>
>The people that scream about minimum wages often misreport statistics as 
>though every high school student working at McDonalds for minimum wage was 
>trying to live off of $11,000 annually.  They aren't, nor are they doing 
>without health care.  Trying to claim them as working poor is disingenuous 
>at best.
>
>Low end jobs are supposed to be stepping stones... you do them to get the 
>money (and sometimes experience) that you need to move on to something 
>better.

I'd find a higher evidence to speculation ratio more convincing, Carl.
Anyway, why do you assume that the sort of person who has to take a
job at Wal-Mart -- and we aren't talking about moonlighting high
school students, who are a tiny percentage of the workforce and don't
work 29 hours a week -- have the skills, qualifications, and ability
necessary to "move on to something better"? We aren't talking law
school graduate here.

-- 
Josh

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals.
We know now that it is bad economics." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Carl" <cengman7 at hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:01:24 -0500
Lines: 71

"Josh Hill" <usereplyto at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:a1elh3llh2vrpi9v8i3df54toq406pl5lg at 4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:41:33 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7 at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto at gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:gfskh39lal1sco0c1976ejm6a7np7d6531 at 4ax.com...
>
>>> According to a web site I found:
>>>
>>> In 2001, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on
>>> average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861. The 2001 poverty
>>> line for a family of three was $14,630. ["Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?",
>>> Business Week, 10/6/03, US Dept of Health and Human Services 2001
>>> Poverty Guidelines, 2001]
>>>
>>> A 2003 wage analysis reported that cashiers, the second most common
>>> job, earn approximately $7.92 per hour and work 29 hours a week. This
>>> brings in annual wages of only $11,948. ["Statistical Analysis of
>>> Gender Patterns in Wal-Mart's Workforce", Dr. Richard Drogin 2003]
>>> Wal-Mart Associates don't earn enough to support a family
>>>
>>> The average two-person family (one parent and one child) needed
>>> $27,948 to meet basic needs in 2005, well above what Wal-Mart reports
>>> that its average full-time associate earns. Wal-Mart claimed that its
>>> average associate earned $9.68 an hour in 2005. That would make the
>>> average associate's annual wages $17,114. ["Basic Family Budget
>>> Calculator" online at www.epinet.org]
>>>
>>> http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/
>>>
>>> It seems they're paying poverty-level wages.
>>
>>Those figures could be very misleading.  How many of those workers are 
>>high
>>school students and not people trying to live on those wages?
>>
>>The people that scream about minimum wages often misreport statistics as
>>though every high school student working at McDonalds for minimum wage was
>>trying to live off of $11,000 annually.  They aren't, nor are they doing
>>without health care.  Trying to claim them as working poor is disingenuous
>>at best.
>>
>>Low end jobs are supposed to be stepping stones... you do them to get the
>>money (and sometimes experience) that you need to move on to something
>>better.
>
> I'd find a higher evidence to speculation ratio more convincing, Carl.
> Anyway, why do you assume that the sort of person who has to take a
> job at Wal-Mart -- and we aren't talking about moonlighting high
> school students, who are a tiny percentage of the workforce and don't
> work 29 hours a week -- have the skills, qualifications, and ability
> necessary to "move on to something better"? We aren't talking law
> school graduate here.

53% of workers making minimum wage are between the age of 16 and 24
(High school and college).

High school students are a *significant* portion of the low end work force.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1186.cfm

Certainly not a "tiny" percentage as you suggest.  As to 29 hours a week,
when I was in high school and college I certainly worked that many hours.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Carl Dershem <dershem at cox.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 04:33:02 GMT
Lines: 23

"Carl" <cengman7 at hotmail.com> wrote in
news:2tKdncEeQtGLUofanZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d at comcast.com: 

> 53% of workers making minimum wage are between the age of 16 and 24
> (High school and college).
> 
> High school students are a *significant* portion of the low end work
> force. 
> 
> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1186.cfm
> 
> Certainly not a "tiny" percentage as you suggest.  As to 29 hours a
> week, when I was in high school and college I certainly worked that
> many hours. 

OK - now quote a credible source.  (YOur source is infamous for its bias 
and disingenuousness).

cd
-- 
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T".  I like Earl 
Grey.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Carl" <cengman7 at hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:49:42 -0500
Lines: 42

"Carl Dershem" <dershem at cox.net> wrote in message 
news:Xns99CFDB3B5A5EBdershemcoxnet at 69.28.173.184...
> "Carl" <cengman7 at hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:2tKdncEeQtGLUofanZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d at comcast.com:
>
>> 53% of workers making minimum wage are between the age of 16 and 24
>> (High school and college).
>>
>> High school students are a *significant* portion of the low end work
>> force.
>>
>> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1186.cfm
>>
>> Certainly not a "tiny" percentage as you suggest.  As to 29 hours a
>> week, when I was in high school and college I certainly worked that
>> many hours.
>
> OK - now quote a credible source.  (YOur source is infamous for its bias
> and disingenuousness).

It was the very first source from a Google of
minimum wage "high school"

Here's another. I think it said 57 %
http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm

Addition breakdown
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html#table1

>
> cd
> -- 
> The difference between immorality and immortality is "T".  I like Earl
> Grey.
> 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Amy Guskin <aisling at fjordstone.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:10:10 GMT
Lines: 42

>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:49:42 -0400, Carl wrote
(in article <-5OdnRI79YD6R4fanZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d at comcast.com>):

> 
> "Carl Dershem" <dershem at cox.net> wrote in message 
> news:Xns99CFDB3B5A5EBdershemcoxnet at 69.28.173.184...
>> "Carl" <cengman7 at hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:2tKdncEeQtGLUofanZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d at comcast.com:
>> 
>>> 53% of workers making minimum wage are between the age of 16 and 24
>>> (High school and college).
>>> 
>>> High school students are a *significant* portion of the low end work
>>> force.
>>> 
>>> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1186.cfm
>>> 
>>> Certainly not a "tiny" percentage as you suggest.  As to 29 hours a
>>> week, when I was in high school and college I certainly worked that
>>> many hours.
>> 
>> OK - now quote a credible source.  (YOur source is infamous for its bias
>> and disingenuousness).
> 
> It was the very first source from a Google of
> minimum wage "high school"
> 
> Here's another. I think it said 57 %
> http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm
> 
> Addition breakdown
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html#table1 <<

Yes, but it still only reflects the entire US workforce, and not Wal-Mart's 
specifically.

Amy
-- 
"In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over 
again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda." - George 
W. Bush, May 24, 2005

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Carl" <cengman7 at hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:02:12 -0500
Lines: 63

"Amy Guskin" <aisling at fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C340C7F2013C7212F0182648 at news.verizon.net...
>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:49:42 -0400, Carl wrote
> (in article <-5OdnRI79YD6R4fanZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d at comcast.com>):
>
>>
>> "Carl Dershem" <dershem at cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns99CFDB3B5A5EBdershemcoxnet at 69.28.173.184...
>>> "Carl" <cengman7 at hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:2tKdncEeQtGLUofanZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d at comcast.com:
>>>
>>>> 53% of workers making minimum wage are between the age of 16 and 24
>>>> (High school and college).
>>>>
>>>> High school students are a *significant* portion of the low end work
>>>> force.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1186.cfm
>>>>
>>>> Certainly not a "tiny" percentage as you suggest.  As to 29 hours a
>>>> week, when I was in high school and college I certainly worked that
>>>> many hours.
>>>
>>> OK - now quote a credible source.  (YOur source is infamous for its bias
>>> and disingenuousness).
>>
>> It was the very first source from a Google of
>> minimum wage "high school"
>>
>> Here's another. I think it said 57 %
>> http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm
>>
>> Addition breakdown
>> http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html#table1 <<
>
> Yes, but it still only reflects the entire US workforce, and not 
> Wal-Mart's
> specifically.

So?   Is there any reason to believe that Wal-Mart in particular has a labor
pool is inherently skewed to older workers?

A lot of businesses hire older workers because there aren't enough younger
ones to fill the jobs.  They WANT younger workers so they don't have to
keep paying raises, etc., the worker moves off to college or something 
better.

Statistically (checking the tables) the number of people that are actually
heads of households with 2 kids and working for minimum wage is very
small.  My point was simply that when someone decries "living wage"
and gives examples of how hard it is for a family of 4 to live on Min wage,
the number of people actually trying is statistically pretty low, and most
of the people on Min Wage don't have to live on it at all and have insurance
from their parents.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Amy Guskin <aisling at fjordstone.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 20:08:25 GMT
Lines: 56

>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 16:02:12 -0400, Carl wrote
(in article <qa2dnUiWHZrYLYbanZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d at comcast.com>):

> 
> "Amy Guskin" <aisling at fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
> news:0001HW.C340C7F2013C7212F0182648 at news.verizon.net...
>>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:49:42 -0400, Carl wrote
>> (in article <-5OdnRI79YD6R4fanZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d at comcast.com>):
>> 
>>> 
>>> "Carl Dershem" <dershem at cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns99CFDB3B5A5EBdershemcoxnet at 69.28.173.184...
>>>> "Carl" <cengman7 at hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:2tKdncEeQtGLUofanZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d at comcast.com:
>>>> 
>>>>> 53% of workers making minimum wage are between the age of 16 and 24
>>>>> (High school and college).
>>>>> 
>>>>> High school students are a *significant* portion of the low end work
>>>>> force.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1186.cfm
>>>>> 
>>>>> Certainly not a "tiny" percentage as you suggest.  As to 29 hours a
>>>>> week, when I was in high school and college I certainly worked that
>>>>> many hours.
>>>> 
>>>> OK - now quote a credible source.  (YOur source is infamous for its bias
>>>> and disingenuousness).
>>> 
>>> It was the very first source from a Google of
>>> minimum wage "high school"
>>> 
>>> Here's another. I think it said 57 %
>>> http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm
>>> 
>>> Addition breakdown
>>> http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html#table1 <<
>> 
>> Yes, but it still only reflects the entire US workforce, and not 
>> Wal-Mart's
>> specifically.
> 
> So?   Is there any reason to believe that Wal-Mart in particular has a labor
> pool is inherently skewed to older workers? <<

Hey, don't drag me into this.  You and Josh were talking about Wal-Mart; you 
posted some statistics; I'm merely pointing out that your statistics _are not 
specific to Wal-Mart_.  Period.

Amy
-- 
"In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over 
again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda." - George 
W. Bush, May 24, 2005

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Carl" <cengman7 at hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:36:41 -0500
Lines: 67

"Amy Guskin" <aisling at fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C34129F70004369DF0182648 at news.verizon.net...
>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 16:02:12 -0400, Carl wrote
> (in article <qa2dnUiWHZrYLYbanZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d at comcast.com>):
>
>>
>> "Amy Guskin" <aisling at fjordstone.com> wrote in message
>> news:0001HW.C340C7F2013C7212F0182648 at news.verizon.net...
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:49:42 -0400, Carl wrote
>>> (in article <-5OdnRI79YD6R4fanZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d at comcast.com>):
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Carl Dershem" <dershem at cox.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns99CFDB3B5A5EBdershemcoxnet at 69.28.173.184...
>>>>> "Carl" <cengman7 at hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:2tKdncEeQtGLUofanZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d at comcast.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 53% of workers making minimum wage are between the age of 16 and 24
>>>>>> (High school and college).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> High school students are a *significant* portion of the low end work
>>>>>> force.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1186.cfm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Certainly not a "tiny" percentage as you suggest.  As to 29 hours a
>>>>>> week, when I was in high school and college I certainly worked that
>>>>>> many hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK - now quote a credible source.  (YOur source is infamous for its 
>>>>> bias
>>>>> and disingenuousness).
>>>>
>>>> It was the very first source from a Google of
>>>> minimum wage "high school"
>>>>
>>>> Here's another. I think it said 57 %
>>>> http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm
>>>>
>>>> Addition breakdown
>>>> http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html#table1 <<
>>>
>>> Yes, but it still only reflects the entire US workforce, and not
>>> Wal-Mart's
>>> specifically.
>>
>> So?   Is there any reason to believe that Wal-Mart in particular has a 
>> labor
>> pool is inherently skewed to older workers? <<
>
> Hey, don't drag me into this.  You and Josh were talking about Wal-Mart; 
> you
> posted some statistics; I'm merely pointing out that your statistics _are 
> not
> specific to Wal-Mart_.  Period.

I wasn't taking a shot at you Amy (never).

I was only suggesting that ther is nothing specific to suggest that the 
statistics don't
also apply to Wal-Mart.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Amy Guskin <aisling at fjordstone.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:02:50 GMT
Lines: 78

>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 16:36:41 -0400, Carl wrote
(in article <5pudnSL7n4vGJYbanZ2dnUVZ_oOnnZ2d at comcast.com>):

> 
> "Amy Guskin" <aisling at fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
> news:0001HW.C34129F70004369DF0182648 at news.verizon.net...
>>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 16:02:12 -0400, Carl wrote
>> (in article <qa2dnUiWHZrYLYbanZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d at comcast.com>):
>> 
>>> 
>>> "Amy Guskin" <aisling at fjordstone.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0001HW.C340C7F2013C7212F0182648 at news.verizon.net...
>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:49:42 -0400, Carl wrote
>>>> (in article <-5OdnRI79YD6R4fanZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d at comcast.com>):
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Carl Dershem" <dershem at cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns99CFDB3B5A5EBdershemcoxnet at 69.28.173.184...
>>>>>> "Carl" <cengman7 at hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:2tKdncEeQtGLUofanZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d at comcast.com:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 53% of workers making minimum wage are between the age of 16 and 24
>>>>>>> (High school and college).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> High school students are a *significant* portion of the low end work
>>>>>>> force.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1186.cfm
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Certainly not a "tiny" percentage as you suggest.  As to 29 hours a
>>>>>>> week, when I was in high school and college I certainly worked that
>>>>>>> many hours.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> OK - now quote a credible source.  (YOur source is infamous for its 
>>>>>> bias
>>>>>> and disingenuousness).
>>>>> 
>>>>> It was the very first source from a Google of
>>>>> minimum wage "high school"
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here's another. I think it said 57 %
>>>>> http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm
>>>>> 
>>>>> Addition breakdown
>>>>> http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html#table1 <<
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, but it still only reflects the entire US workforce, and not
>>>> Wal-Mart's
>>>> specifically.
>>> 
>>> So?   Is there any reason to believe that Wal-Mart in particular has a 
>>> labor
>>> pool is inherently skewed to older workers? <<
>> 
>> Hey, don't drag me into this.  You and Josh were talking about Wal-Mart; 
>> you
>> posted some statistics; I'm merely pointing out that your statistics _are 
>> not
>> specific to Wal-Mart_.  Period.
> 
> 
> I wasn't taking a shot at you Amy (never).
> 
> I was only suggesting that ther is nothing specific to suggest that the 
> statistics don't
> also apply to Wal-Mart. <<

I'm also not saying that they _don't_, just that it doesn't necessarily 
follow.  For instance, what's the percentage of males to females in the 
workforce, and is that precisely mirrored by the way the Hooters corporation 
demographics shake out?

Amy
-- 
"In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over 
again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda." - George 
W. Bush, May 24, 2005

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "jmsatb5 at aol.com" <jmsatb5 at aol.com>
Date: 22 Oct 2007 00:46:09 -0700
Lines: 83

I'm re-sending this because I think the system glitched on the first
send.  If this dupes, ignore it.

jms

---------------

Let me jump in here for a second to try and turn the discussion a bit,
in that the situation as it affects writers is vastly different than
in any other union.

First, to the non- or anti-union folks, a question: when you go into a
book store to buy a copy of a novel by your favorite author, do you
mind that roughly twelve percent of the price of that book goes to the
author?  Or do you feel that he's entitled to that royalty?

Most folks, I would suggest, are totally okay with that idea.  They
wrote the book, the publisher published the book, they're both
entitled to get something back from the publishing of it.  That seems
only fair.

The situation with the WGA is really no different.  It's a way of
ensuring that artists -- who live in a very different world than the
9-5 universe everybody else lives in -- receive some regular form of
compensation to keep them alive and solvent during the often very long
periods of time required to create the next thing.

Leaving off such catastrophic events as being laid off or fired...most
people go to work every day in expectation of a paycheck that will
come regularly.  Writers don't.  They get paid when they a) write, b)
finish what they write, and c) someone decides to *pay* for what
they've written.

It's not uncommon for writers to go a year, two years, even longer
without working in their chosen field.  Doesn't matter who you are.
After William Goldman won his first Oscar, he didn't work again for
almost five years.

The royalties formula in books, and the residuals formula in tv/film,
is all that allows writers to keep doing what they're in the period
when they're *writing* and not *selling*.  Take that away, and many of
the works of literature and film that we've come to enjoy would not
exist because the writers involved would not have been able to create
them, they would've been forced to go out and seek employment
elsewhere.

Prose writers have the authors' guild or SFWA or other organizations
that watchdog publishers and provide assistance and information on
royalties, contracts, health insurance and the like.

TV/film writers have the WGA, which is a much more complex
organization because the permutations and ways in which monies can be
hidden, and by which revenue streams are delivered, are all massively
more complex.

There was a time, back in the 30s and 40s, when writers got nothing
more than a script fee for their work, even though it might take a
year or more to write that script.  And a lot of talented writers fell
by the wayside.  The creation of the WGA changed that and brought into
par with the prose writers whose royalties you would seem to feel are
right and proper.

And those can't be negotiated person-by-person because the studios see
us as individually replaceable.  Only collectively can there be any
impact.

I've had my problems with the WGA over the years, some of them have
become nearly legendary with the WGA.  But if the WGA did not exist,
there would be no way for most writers to survive doing what they love
to do.

As to this coming labor action, when you go into the store next and
buy a DVD and a book, look at the two of them and know that the author
of the book gets a full twelve to fifteen percent of the price...and
the author of the DVD gets, *at most* four cents per DVD, and most of
the time literally and absolutely *nothing* for it...and ask yourself,
"Why the difference?"

That's the question at hand at the WGA as well.

jms