More links of interest... not animation this time, but worker stuff. You know, the old battle between workers and management...
This item from Gawker.com came up in comments -- benefit changes at Viacom -- which we thought was worth linking:
Changes to employee benefits and responsibilities happen, even if you're a giant like Viacom. Shaving costs is part of running a business, especially one in an industry whose prototype is changing rapidly. That said, there's a way to give bad news to employees (even those oh-so-lowly contractors!) and a way not to. Communicating the changes through HR reps unarmed with the salient details? Not recommended. Burying (or not mentioning!) the most significant of those changes in whatever paperwork you do give out? Not recommended.
And the Writers Guild and AMPTP negotiations fall apart when the Alliance walks, and TAG morphs into "an other" in the AMPTP's Friday communique to the WGA:
Your Animation proposal, W-14, is likewise unacceptable. As you know, there is another union which has long had jurisdiction over the work you are now seeking to cover by your proposal...
We appear to be the union whose name is not spoken.
Posts
2 comments:
the AMPTP says We believe that it should be up to the writers in this field, ... to express their desire as to whether they wish to be represented by the WGA or that other union.
But if the writers have any other desires, they don't want to hear them.
I have real problems with the AMPTP's statement here.
It's nonsensical because writers already under TAG's jurisdiction are part of a half-century old bargaining unit. I don't think the Alliance is suggesting that the writers all of a sudden split off; the writers couldn't in any event, because they're part of a larger group, all under one contract.
But that's the way the AMPTP's statement comes off. So at a minium, it's way disingenuous. We should take the above for what it is: a political statement signifying not very much.
Post a Comment