When the WGA voted to strike on May 2nd, they were seeking (In a nutshell) A 16% raise, divided over the 3 year contract, Higher residuals (This is when a writer is paid for their work being aired, long-term, AFTER having been paid to do the work in the first place), more staff on any single project, Increased pension and health benefits, and Restrictions on the use of AI writing technology. If you're interested, here's a full breakdown [https://www.wga.org/uploadedfiles/members/member_info/contract-2023/WGA_proposals.pdf] Do you think what the WGA is asking for is justified?

On August 11th, the AMPTP made an offer that was very close to what the WGA originally asked for, as indicated by the web page referred to in the previous question. A summary of this offer is a 13% raise divided over 3 years, access to data (presumably viewership data from various streaming services), increased employment guarantees, increased staffing, AI protection, the requested improvements to pension and health benefits, and opportunities for career advancement training written into the contract. If you're interested in the specifics, the full offer is published here: [https://labor.amptp.org/sites/labor.amptp.org/files/AMPTP%20Press%20Release%202023%2008%2022.pdf#overlay-context=node/19237] Considering what the WGA asked for, do you think this is a good offer?

The WGA, obviously, rejected this offer. In your opinion, with what you have heard or read about the strike, do you think that the WGA made the right decision ?