


Historically, of course, "the strike" has been an effective means to keep both sides of the bargaining relationship focused on reaching agreement (to avoid the costs that an interruption of services can inflict on all parties). Accordingly, any observer of labor relations and collective bargaining, not to mention negotiations generally, would have an interest in what the incentives (and impediments) to effective negotiations are and appreciate that 'structural elements' can affect the bargaining dynamic.
And so it is with more than passing interest to note that the daily daytime dramas, the soap operas, "General Hospital," "As the World Turns," "All my Children," "The Young and the Restless" and the old standby, "The Guiding Light," among others, are reportedly still producing fresh shows. Indeed, none of the eight network shows have gone into reruns since the writers' strike began, and, reportedly, none intend to do so. So how are the shows being written when nearly all their writers, guild members, are on strike?
Sure, a few writers have crossed picket lines and returned to work but not many. A few others have received dispensation from the guild due to hardship; they are granted what is called "financial core status" and are allowed to return to work without recrimination or penalty. But the majority of writers remain 'officially' on strike. So, how, then, are the shows continuing to thrive?
Here, evidently, is the kicker: People don't have to cross a picket line to produce copy over the Internet. Who would know? How many officially striking writers are, in fact, sending copy to their shows? How can the guild monitor, much less enforce, the withholding of work? And, if non-guild writers are submitting copy, and the writing is acceptable, don't guild writers fear for their jobs?
In a twist of irony, it is the invisible picket line that the Internet makes possible--that undercuts the effectiveness of the strike--that may well be the salvation for the writers. The need to expand the pool from which to draw assignments for writers, and thus enhance salaries and benefits prospectively, may well be the Internet itself. As viewers of daytime television decline and the number using the Internet for programming increases, the prospect of soaps appearing exclusively on the Internet may not be far off.
But beyond this medium and this strike, are there other implications for the Internet and collective bargaining? Aren't there other contexts in which services can be delivered when the providers of those services need not physically cross a picket line to provide them? Teachers can teach students online, for example, if the buildings that house classrooms are being picketed.
In order to maintain the force of a strike, or even the threat of a strike, to keep collective bargaining vital, it seems essential to find a means for bringing pressure on both sides of the bargaining relationship so that interruptions of services are few and far-between to be sure but that fair and equitable terms for wages, salaries and working conditions can be effectively negotiated.
What will substitute for "the strike" in this altered universe, the age of the Internet, seems, at this point, to be anyone's guess but it is a challenge that requires serious attention. Maintaining balance in the bargaining relationship is essential to its effective functioning; that objective is clearly in the public interest.
(blog.nj.com)