On a lighter note... LET'S HEAR IT for STEWART and COLBERT for weathering the strike with aplomb...

[The Doctor.]

(And a special mention to Conan O'Brien for jumping on the train.)

I just love when the talent can make the show, and Colbert and Stewart showed right up.


(Frankly people... I'll take any excuse to get away from the catfights.)

Who's with me!

[seabeyond]

1. is the strike over? i love what colbert and stewart have done with the

strike and how they let it play so much in their shows. told hubby the other night just admire the guys so

[kevsand]

2. I haven't watched since they came back.

I'm not sure that I'll ever watch again. They should have negotiated their own agreements (like Letterman) or stayed off the air. Running without writers is no different than having management or national guard troops do line work to keep a business going. It is barely a half step above using scabs. It undermines the strike and thereby undermines the strikers. It is anti-union at its core, and I can not ever forgive them for it.

[LSK]

4. I havnt watched more than 10 minutes during the strike

I might return now thou.

[tuvor]

6. If the writers felt they got screwed by Stewart/Colbert, I would expect they'd have made some noise.

As I understand it, however, they've made no complaints and are happily going back to work for these shows.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please.

[kevsand]

12. Once a strike is over, everyone goes back to work, no questions asked.

That's just how it works, so the fact that writers are going back to work for these shows has no special significance.

There has, however, been a lot of grumbling among union members in general whom I know about both of these shows, as well as Jay Leno.

[tuvor]

13. I can understand that. Still, you have to admit it's curious that...

...there's been no apparent "grumbling" from union members specifically tied to TDS or TCR, the opinions of your union-member acquaintances notwithstanding.

In this day and age, and with the popularity of these shows, I have trouble believing any bad feelings from the writers would not end up garnering some media attention.

As it turns out, even a Google search for "daily show" and "writer's strike" seems to reveal nothing germane.

Like I said, it's curious.

[kevsand]

15. You're probably right about that.

My guess is that there are probably some very strong personal bonds in this case between the on-air talent and their writers. That's the sort of thing that could easily keep the writers from wanting to say anything negative about people they consider both friends and co-workers.

It doesn't alter the fundamental principles involved, however. There is no middle ground possible in a strike. Each individual is either aligned with management or labor; you can't serve both. In this case, by their actions, if not their words, Stewart and Colbert both chose the side of management. Their particular employees may be inclined to look the other way out of personal friendship. That doesn't mean that I can.

[ProgressiveFool]

23. I think they sided with the third party that you forgot - their audience

edit: so much for that "lighter note", eh?

[The Doctor.]

24. Oi.

I should have known better.

Maybe I'll jus have to post pictures of cute fuzzy bunnies in GD.

Oh... wait, that'll bring out the "Anti-bunny exploitation" crowd.

You just can't win.

[kevsand]

27. I am truly, deeply sorry this has gone on the way it has.

I mean that. It was never my intention to spend this much time on it, or to hijack or monopolize the thread. I thought I could just put my two cents in, and so would everyone else, and that would be that.

I should have known better. I had forgotten how surprisingly many anti-union folks there are at DU, but more significantly, how (unsurprisingly) many folks just don't really understand the seriousness of a strike or even remotely what it really means or how it works.

I think I've spent enough time on this thread, and I'm really going to try to sit on my hands, now. Again, my apologies.

[The Doctor.]

29. You've apologized for the wrong things.

Mentioning what you have regarding TDS and TCR was valid.

Suggesting that anyone who shows appreciation for Stewart and Colbert makes them 'anti-union' is not.

I would like an apology for that.


Meanwhile, it's been pretty well established that Colbert and Stewart had little freedom to protest, and gave the strike a great deal more visibility where they could afford to. If you truly believe they could have done more, as I'm sure is possible, then you have a right to be angry... even if you really don't know.

Your outrage is not unfounded, but it is misplaced.

[kevsand]

30. I never meant to suggest that appreciation of Stewart or Colbert is anti-union.

Clearly that would not be valid, and I do apologize if that's how my remarks came across. Hell, I greatly appreciate them, and have always enormously admired and enjoyed their work. That's probably a big part of my disappointment that they appeared, to me at least, to have stumbled so badly in this instance, even if it was entirely inadvertent on their parts.

While there are a number of anti-union folks at DU, I also did not mean to suggest that any of them have posted (so far, at least) in this particular thread, or that any of the comments in this thread (again, so far) have been overtly or specifically anti-union. What I was trying to emphasize was the general lack of recognition or awareness of the dynamics of a strike situation, even among otherwise well meaning progressives who are generally favorable to unions.

In the general mainstream of the union community, any action, no matter how well intentioned or unavoidable, which facilitates the continued operation of an employer who is the target of a strike, is automatically considered to have worked against the strike and the strikers. This is because the sole and entire purpose of a strike is to suspend the continued operations of the employer. Without that suspension of operations, there is no significant impact, and the strike has no meaning, and will most likely fail.

This strike was slightly different from most in that there was no singular workplace, or even multiple workplaces of a single employer. There were, instead, multiple employers, and a myriad of workplaces. That sort of situation generally works against the strikers, since it makes it harder to assess the impact of actions at any single workplace.

I do not feel that Stewart and Colbert's actions were necessarily capable of breaking the strike by themselves, just as they clearly could not have guaranteed its success, either. I do feel that they could have done more than they did. They have an advantage that many do not: millions of people hang on their every word every weeknight.

That is an enormous amount of power. I am delighted that they used that power to disparage their employers. I am disappointed that they felt that they were compelled to work to keep their shows on the air during the strike. Clearly, this is a double edged sword, and a difficult choice for anyone to make. Obviously a number of people disagree with my assessment. Some of those who disagree with me have even been union people.

That's okay. It is one of the strengths of DU to be able to discuss stuff like this calmly and intelligently, unlike some of the BS over in GD-P. While I'm disappointed that there haven't been more union folks in this discussion, I am at the same time very pleased those of us actually in this thread have been able to talk about it like grownups, with a minimum of rancor. Thanks to everyone for that.

[The Doctor.]

32. That's a rather fair assessment.

Thanks for fleshing out the issue too.

[kevsand]

26. So it's okay for any company to screw it's workers...

...if they just claim they did it for their customers? I must have missed that day in Labor-Management Theory.

[REP]

9. They couldn't've negotiated agreements like Letterman; Letterman owns his show; they don't

Stewart and Colbert are contracted as writers and performers (like John Oliver, who was on during the strike to avoid being deported - does that make him a scab?). You're welcome to your opinion, but maybe you should familiarize yourself with the facts first before making ludicrous statements.

[kevsand]

10. They could have refused to go on.

That was entirely within their power to do. They also could have pushed their owners to negotiate. That also was within their power.

Ownership is irrelevant to their own personal actions. We each of us are responsible for what we do. Actions have consequences, and they always speak louder than words. By going on the air without writers, they enabled the business to continue as though nothing had happened, and therefore clearly sided with management rather than the union.

Sometimes the choices are hard, and the price to be paid is steep, but "They made me do it" is no better an excuse than "I was just following orders." Maybe you should think through what you say before making ludicrous assumptions on a subject area in which you obviously have no experience.

[Akoto]

16. Indeed.

They could've refused to go on, in which case Colbert/Stewart and their staff would likely have had no job to return to.

[kevsand]

18. Do you seriously believe that Comedy Central would just walk away?

From both of their most successful shows? I really doubt that, but if they did, my guess is that they would have been picked up en masse by someone else pretty quickly. It's not like Stewart or Colbert were in any danger of being thrown in jail or clubbed by company goons. I think they would probably have survived, somehow.

Besides, the whole point of a strike is that sometimes principles are more important than the next paycheck. Every worker who has ever gone on strike has always risked the permanent loss of their job. That is the nature of strikes. The question non-strikers must always answer is whether or not to cross the picket line. Stewart and Colbert chose to do so.

[malaise]

11. I boycotted them during the strike n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

17. They attempted an offer like Letterman did...

and were turned down. Jon mentioned this in one of the first few shows after he returned.

It's my understanding that they were paying their writers during the strike as well.

I think they did the best they could under the circumstances of their contracts.

[kevsand]

20. Those are certainly commendable acts.

That doesn't alter the fact that by performing, Stewart and Colbert facilitated the uninterrupted flow of revenue to their corporate masters, thereby totally negating the only significant leverage of the strike. Their actions in continuing the show completely undercut the union, and there is no escaping that fact, regardless of how they may have tried to ameliorate things for their own individual writers.

[Missy Vixen]

22. They were ordered to go back to work by Viacom

It wasn't a question of doing so voluntarily. You might also want to think on the fact that, if both had refused, they would have been sued for breach of contract.

It takes a pretty brave person to demand that someone else go up against the hundreds-of-millions of dollars' worth of resources of the above company. "Uninterrupted flow of revenue to their corporate masters"? The reason why they were commanded to go back to work in the first place was because (I'm sure,) of the ad buybacks. The networks forked out hundreds of millions over ad buybacks because of dropping revenues. Stewart and Colbert also are under a different agreement than the writers. One of the tenets of that contract demands that they can't strike in sympathy, unfortunately.

I'd be willing to put $20 on the reason the strike finally ended: The Oscar telecast is worth (again) hundreds of millions to the movie industry and the LA economy. It had nothing to do with whether or not Stewart and Colbert were forced back to work.

My father was a Machinist's Union official when I was growing up, by the way.

Julie

[kevsand]

25. I'm sorry, but "I was just following orders" doesn't cut it.

Some orders demand to be disobeyed. Even the military recognizes that principle. Some contracts deserve to be broken. Sueing the most visible and popular talent on two of their most profitable shows is not a good business move, and Viacom is almost certainly smart enough to realize that.

Ad buybacks just make it all the more imperative to keep any and all possible money coming in to cover cash flow.

And I'm willing to bet that these two guys have a lot more clout with their bosses than anyone here realizes. At a minimum, they have a certain amount of protection just because of their popularity and profitability to the company. It's not absolute, to be sure, and there is obviously still a fair amount of risk for them. There's even more risk, though, for those already out on strike, regardless of who does or doesn't support them.

I'm not "demanding" anything. People do what they feel like they have to, and they make their own choices. Those choices have meaning, and consequences. I'm just disappointed with these particular choices.

[Missy Vixen]

28. When was the last time you went up against hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of legal fees?

Considering the fact that the Writers' Guild is not unhappy with Stewart and Colbert, I have to wonder about your animus. They were put in an untenable situation. Stewart and Colbert don't own their shows, either, which was why David Letterman's agreement with the writers came about.

I also disagree with your idea that Viacom wouldn't sue. They'd sue Stewart and Colbert personally. Don't you believe that if there was any way out of the agreement both of them signed, they would have not only bolted, they would have taken their shows to HBO or Showtime? They make a fraction of what someone like Jay Leno makes, for example, and they don't have the artistic freedom they'd have at a HBO or a Showtime.

Stewart and Colbert shredded their "corporate masters" every night while compelled to work.

Julie

[hiaasenrocks]

19. From someone in the WGA....

Get over yourself.

[kevsand]

21. From a former elected AFL-CIO officer,

and over the last several decades a former member of UFCW, ACTWU, ILGWU, UNITE, and a current member of CWA, I'm sorry that you feel that way. This was never about me until you made it so. I'm not the strikebreaker.

[question everything]

31. The don't have Letterman's millions but they did have many workers depending on

them for their paychecks. Heating bills in NYC must be hight these days and it is not as if stage hands make a lot of money.

[Wiley50]

3. A Plomb will get you through times of no Writers better than

writers can get you through times of no plomb

(paraphrasing the Furry Freak Brothers)

[Wiley50]

5. OMG! I've got another Heart On!

and I'd like to give them arousing hand

but, i didn't see who it was

[Swamp Rat]

7. me!

:hi:

[tchunter]

8. that sketch was so good

between the random dancing and colbert and conan stomping jon stewart with ice skates on, it was just pure comedy gold.


and they've already made several references to how dumb of a skit it was

[annabanana]

14. absolutely!

They used their platforms to highlight the strike... the put VERY FUNNY shows on every night. . and they managed to keep getting digs in where digs were needed.