Truer words have never been spoken.

In 1988, during the strike, viewers flocked to cable.
The studios didn't care. They own cable channels, too.

In 2007, the audience will migrate to the Web. But the joy of watching dogs skateboard is finite.

Ultimately, compelling content wins.
And it HAS value (no matter what platform it gets distributed).

If the writers strike out of principle (b/c there is never a monetary gain in a strike -- when you figure out days-missed-working versus the ultimate gains), it's the studio and the broadcast television entities that will suffer the most.

No, I didn't think so. So don't come crying to me. You are a journalist/writer working for Time magazine, and since you're doing the "working for" part it seems pretty clear to me that Time can decide whether that effort goes toward print media, online media, or both. The fact that you want to get paid twice for what is still basically one job is mind-bogglingly opportunistic to me, and as a former (foreign) journalist myself I'm amazed journalism works that way in America.

The only exception I'd see is if you're all still currently getting paid on a per-line basis, in which case this discussion is suddenly again very, very valid. But then I'd still have to recommend getting into another line of work, since your union would only now be picking a very good fight far too late.

"and btw James, shame on you for taking advantage of the pay and benefits that only a union could provide you without paying dues. Without your position being covered, Time could just go out and hire someone willing to work for less."

The "that only a union could provide you" is an absurd claim. You are always free to negotiate your own salary, you are always free to leave any company that does not meet your needs. I recognise the immense historical value of unions, especially in certain sectors, but let's be serious here. You're not talking about a very wild west sector in this case. Incidentally, my own employer is perfectly free to "hire someone willing to work for less" if they can find someone. That's how the world goes: they employ, you work, both of you get a chance to make demands and both of you get a chance to refuse demands. Too much stock is placed in wanting "job security" these days, which only makes for lazy job-hunters. Your employer doesn't place enough value on you, then leave him. It's their loss anyway, and after losing enough talented people to the competition, they'll either learn the lesson or go broke.

"Which sounds like a threat to me.... especially at a time when cutbacks in dead-tree media are taking place, and on-line content is becoming more and more important."

Yes, God forbid that a company might actually be allowed to evaluate its own employees and, if necessary, get rid of the ones that are deadweight in order to remain competitive. Look, either you're productive or you're not, and if you're in the first category in a somewhat healthy company you never need to worry, despite any blustering on your employer's side. If you're worried about being in the second category, I'm sorry to say I find it pretty natural that they'd want to get rid of you. Employers are not employing out of the charity of their hearts (hahaha at that one), they're employing in order to turn a profit.

Incidentally, if you're a union goombah and you're calling traditional paper media "dead tree-media which are becoming less and less important", how are you serving your fellow employees' interest by negotiating a contract addendum that allows them to stay away from the form of media you yourself calls the future? You should be worried about job guarantees when (or if) the switch finally happens, and telling current employees to limit themselves to the "obsolete" form of working mostly just seems like a really good way to make those employees obsolete as well.

Oooo...sign me up!!!

There will simply be no living with Chad until Lost comes back on. I hear he stumbles thru his day, unshaven, unbathed and mumbling about hatches, stations, others, etc.

geez, talk about sour grapes. You always have the option of forming a union, you know.... indeed, the people who create on-line content are in an excellent position to unionize --- without new content constantly being posted, page views would go down immediately... and advertisers would start demanding their money back.

You've got management by the balls -- you just don't know it.

Rock: content providers (writers, actors, etc.) deserve to profit when profit is being made on their words, visage, whatever. And no one can dispute that so-called 'new media' will bring an ocean of cash as soon as the dam breaks.

Hard place: This is a rich man's game. If you aren't working as a writer, then who cares what your percentage is? No writer currently working under the WGA banner is underpaid. Period. Does it not behoove the union to bring all writing under their umbrella? Get their members work, and get more members as a priority over negotiating something that doesn't exist?

The ground we (all - in the entertainment business) stand on: a shaky precipice at best. If a strike falls on Hollywood, and the rest of the world doesn't care at all, what does that mean?

Every day editors at my company and others are being asked to create content for the different platforms we're now using to make money--Internet, e-newsletters, the print publications, live events, podcasts, Webinars--and yet we do not get compensated more for the extraneous content we produce in order to keep our jobs, and in fact, most of us get on average a 3% raise each year, if we're lucky. Some years we've had salary freezes to make the numbers Wall Street thought we should be making.

The WGA, from what I can tell, is representing writers who are still producing the same content, said content is just being distributed via different avenues now. I get the underlying point: If the executives are making more money off their content, why shouldn't they, but you know what, life's not always fair like that. Try writing for the business-to-business press.

I'm totally a 'tie goes to the runner' kind of dude on issues like this. If a system is going to be unfair, it should be unfair in favor of the Little Guy. I'm not going to weep for some Time-Warner shareholder who saw his dividends dip this fiscal quarter if it means that a $50,000-earning 'CSI' writer becomes better equipped for retirement.

OK, maybe not 'CSI'. I'll try to think of the 'Office' writers or something.

(and btw James, shame on you for taking advantage of the pay and benefits that only a union could provide you without paying dues. Without your position being covered, Time could just go out and hire someone willing to work for less.)

Studios are now basing their calculation for a shows profitability on its potential for distribution in other media. Unless the studios want to drastically increase what they pay writers up front for material, the writers deserve a nice big chunk of 'new media' revenues.

And writers for reality shows also should be covered by the contract. Reality shows are entertainment, and written narration is composed with entertainment in mind.

As for what is going on at Time, while the union contract says that magazine writers can't be forced to create web content, back in June Rick Stengel made it clear that "evaluations...will be based on the quality and quantity of the contributions each of you make to both the magazine and Time.com" http://gawker.com/news/platform-agnosticism/time-shoving-its-reluctant-writers-online-270291.php

Which sounds like a threat to me.... especially at a time when cutbacks in dead-tree media are taking place, and on-line content is becoming more and more important.