In 2007-2008, more than 12,000 members of the Writers Guild of America went out on strike after contract negotiations with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) came to impasse. The strike started in November, 2007 and concluded in February, 2008 and, by some estimates, cost the industry around $2 billion. Given the expense of the strike to the industry and lost income to the writers, what other alternatives might the writers have considered in their quest to pressure the AMPTP to make concessions? Why do you think the Writers Guild decided to strike instead of pursuing these less costly alternatives?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

One possible action by the writers could have been to encourage a boycott of movies and television programs produced by members of the AMPTP. A boycott would encourage viewers to refuse to watch any programming such programming. This tactic would not, unfortunately, prove to be too successful for the writers for at least two reasons. One, the strikers would have difficulty convincing viewers to give up their shows voluntarily. Two, given the size of the AMPTP, it would be extremely difficult to provide viewers with accurate information as to which shows they should boycott.
Another alternative to the boycott or a strike might have been to engage in a work slowdown or work-to-rule. Slowdowns would pressure the AMPTP by imposing costs through lowered productivity while still preserving the writers' jobs. However, a slowdown in this particular industry might anger viewers by lending unpredictability to the viewing schedule. This could possibly turn public sentiment toward the AMPTP and have the unfortunate effect of backfiring on the union.
Intermittent strikes might have been another alternative for the writers but intermittent strikes are less effective in an industry where there are lots of employers and alternative program options. In addition, as with the slowdown the intermittent strikes would create unpredictability in scheduling programs and could backfire on the union.
Finally, the writers could have embarked on a corporate campaign to create negative publicity for the AMPTP. Corporate campaigns can be very effective when safety is an issue or where there is clear management abuse because the public is more readily engaged in the story. However, no such abuses were at play in this situation where the primary concern was one of compensation. Given this, it would probably be more difficult garner public support.