Union Thugs and huffPo

[Nighthawk]

It seems that the Newspaper Writers Guild has jumped on the bandwagon with a group called Visual Art Source who decided to boycott/picket HuffPo.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/17/newspaper-guild-huffington-post-strike/

Visual Arts Source is a group of 50 people who contributed content to HuffPo. After HuffPo was sold to AOL for $315 million these guys decided to try and grad what they think is their share of the goods so they started a 'strike'. Now the newspaper Writers Guild has joined in and is calling on all unpaid contributers to join the 'electronic strike'. Looks as though they want their piece of the pie too.

First off I think it is rather ironic that the owner of a liberal blog sells out for $315 million, pockets the cash and refuses to share with her liberal friends/contributers. Or maybe it is even more ironic that these liberal bloggers were fine posing their work for free until HuffPo was sold and they now want 'their' money too?

My second thought is, what business is it of this/these unions if Huffington pays her contributers or not? These bloggers knew that they would not be paid for what they contributed yet they kept writing. This is none of the union's business and them trying to force her to pay these bloggers is just plain thuggery.

So, if these thugs get their way does that mean that if I write something on a blog or website I can then demand payment from the website's owner?

[Palehorse]

"Fools and obstinate (wo)men make lawyers rich."

[The Troll]

"Fools and obstinate (wo)men make lawyers rich."

  Well NightSquack what would you do when you think someone stole  your labor.  Nothing?  I would think a person of your ilk, you would sue too.    Where do you get the term thug. 

[Nighthawk]

  Well NightSquack what would you do when you think someone stole  your labor.  Nothing?  I would think a person of your ilk, you would sue too.    Where do you get the term thug. 

Nope. As they knew when they were submitting their work they knew that they would not be paid. If I submit any work I know the terms first and if I know I am giving it for no compensation than that is my decision and I would have to live with it. these people knew full well what they were doing and decided after Huffington made millions that they wanted what they now perceive to be their cut. Big union is there to help them steal it or punish the capitalist.

These THUGS are using their influence and power to pressure a business into doing something that the owner is in NO WAY obligated to do. These ARE thug tactics.

This is also a good example of trying to redistribute wealth. Just kinda funny that it's liberals screwing liberals.

[The Troll]

  like I said before, you must be from another Universe.  I am so glad you know so much about the interworkings and the conversations that took place at Huffington Post.  You must be paychic and clairvoyant.

  You surely weren't raise the way you turned out.  Selfship, greedy and selfcentered.  Surly anyone who is fair minded and intelligent can't believe what you have said and what you are going to say. 

[Nighthawk]

  like I said before, you must be from another Universe.  I am so glad you know so much about the interworkings and the conversations that took place at Huffington Post.  You must be paychic and clairvoyant.

  You surely weren't raise the way you turned out.  Selfship, greedy and selfcentered.  Surly anyone who is fair minded and intelligent can't believe what you have said and what you are going to say. 

Are you actually saying that people who knowingly submitted work that they knew full well that they would NOT be paid for are now somehow entitled to be paid for it AFTER THE FACT???!!! 

And you say I live in a different universe?? WOW!!

[The Troll]

Are you actually saying that people who knowingly submitted work that they knew full well that they would NOT be paid for are now somehow entitled to be paid for it AFTER THE FACT???!!! 

And you say I live in a different universe?? WOW!!

  You know this to be a FACT.  How do you really know.  Let the courts and juries do it.  Instead of making W. A. S.  Wild Ass Statements.  Let's face it you honestly don't know.  Do you? 

[Nighthawk]

  You know this to be a FACT.  How do you really know.  Let the courts and juries do it.  Instead of making W. A. S.  Wild Ass Statements.  Let's face it you honestly don't know.  Do you? 

Yes, I do know this to be FACT.

From here:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/17/newspaper-guild-huffington-post-strike/


The strike was called earlier this year by the membership of Visual Art Source, whose 50 members had previously contributed content for free to the site.

And:


Ruiz's February 20 e-mail addressed a post on the Newspaper Guild's website titled "Arianna got millions, all we got was a byline." The post called on Arianna Huffington "to invest in quality journalism by sharing a portion of this fortune with the people who made her successful."



Says right in the article that these people previously submitted their work for free and now want a share of her fortune.

[Palehorse]

Yes, I do know this to be FACT.

From here:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/17/newspaper-guild-huffington-post-strike/


The strike was called earlier this year by the membership of Visual Art Source, whose 50 members had previously contributed content for free to the site.

And:


Ruiz's February 20 e-mail addressed a post on the Newspaper Guild's website titled "Arianna got millions, all we got was a byline." The post called on Arianna Huffington "to invest in quality journalism by sharing a portion of this fortune with the people who made her successful."



Says right in the article that these people previously submitted their work for free and now want a share of her fortune.

So? Do you believe everything you read and hear in the media? Are you a judge?

Are laws not meant to be tried in order to clarify them and adjust them as necessary to properly reflect the advancements in humankind and civilization?

[Nighthawk]

So? Do you believe everything you read and hear in the media? Are you a judge?

Are laws not meant to be tried in order to clarify them and adjust them as necessary to properly reflect the advancements in humankind and civilization?

Do you guys just argue for the sake of argument?? This story is easily confirmed and no, I don't believe everything I read but this story is confirmed on the people involved own web sites.

What laws need to be clarified here??

[Palehorse]

Do you guys just argue for the sake of argument?? This story is easily confirmed and no, I don't believe everything I read but this story is confirmed on the people involved own web sites.

What laws need to be clarified here??

Just asking questions to ascertain the method(s) you used in arriving at such a conclusion. . .

Given the subjective nature of "cyber-law" and its enforcement, I was wondering if you knew something or had a source other than those readily available to all.

Let's take e-mail as an example. While everyone pretty much knows that your work e-mail maintains no expectation surrounding privacy under the fourth amendment, apparently the average individual using their own private e-mail accounts from home does not possess a much higher expectation of privacy.

http://public.findlaw.com/internet/email-privacy.html

http://www.fitsnews.com/2009/07/21/private-emails-could-be-fair-game/

And given the assumption, (because we are provided no information surrounding TOS or any other policies of the parties involved) that in the situation in question here, no written contract was enjoined under which the terms of the relationship were agreed to by all involved, nor was such signed, it would not be unreasonable to enter into legal discovery to clarify those terms, whether or not they existed from a legal standing, and their implications. . .if any.

To mindlessly decry any effort to do so is to project implicit support of tyranny, is it not?

[The Troll]

Just asking questions to ascertain the method(s) you used in arriving at such a conclusion. . .

Given the subjective nature of "cyber-law" and its enforcement, I was wondering if you knew something or had a source other than those readily available to all.

Let's take e-mail as an example. While everyone pretty much knows that your work e-mail maintains no expectation surrounding privacy under the fourth amendment, apparently the average individual using their own private e-mail accounts from home does not possess a much higher expectation of privacy.

http://public.findlaw.com/internet/email-privacy.html

http://www.fitsnews.com/2009/07/21/private-emails-could-be-fair-game/

And given the assumption, (because we are provided no information surrounding TOS or any other policies of the parties involved) that in the situation in question here, no written contract was enjoined under which the terms of the relationship were agreed to by all involved, nor was such signed, it would not be unreasonable to enter into legal discovery to clarify those terms, whether or not they existed from a legal standing, and their implications. . .if any.

To mindlessly decry any effort to do so is to project implicit support of tyranny, is it not?

  Amen Bro PH.  Anyone who has watch Arianna Huffington on Tv knows that she's a smart cookie.  But she isn't that smart to build up Huffington Post to the I/3 of a billion dollar price she got out of it.  With some of the best talent in news writting and news bloggers in the country.  And they all worked for NOTHING?  Kiss my butt if they all worked for nothing. 

[Palehorse]

Moreover, I would suggest that had Huffington been proactive and truly forward thinking, she'd have chosen to share her windfall (even at some token level) with those who brought her the success; therein avoiding what is sure to be a huge bill for legal representation in an effort to hoard it.

Either way, it's going to take a HUGE bite out of it, and it probably would have been a lot cheaper to share a little of it and void the possibility of this lawsuit. ( A simple written legal agreement relinquishing the writers right to legal action, connected with a "token payment of some level" as "payment in full for services rendered", would have quashed any possibility of legal discovery surrounding the issues)

[Nighthawk]

What lawsuit are you talking about?? The only suit I can find concerning HuffPo was filed back in Nov. 2010 and concerns whose idea HuffPo was. Nothing to do with or involving the people 'on strike' against HuffPo.

[Palehorse]

The one this event you posted will eventually lead to. . . IF the writers have a leg to stand it upon. . . And, if the assumption is surely not the case then why are we even discussing it? Opinions belong to those who believe they are entitled to them; for reasons that are their own. . .