The essay question for the test in my most recent Business Administration class involved the story of 'Who Moved My cheese?' If you're not familiar, my paper should explain sufficiently, it's just a parable on job loss in the changing job market, and the ways people refuse to change with it, pretending as though anger and excuses somehow justify them being handed the security they desire.I feel pretty good about banging this out in just a few minutes. Very convenient to have looming strikes on hand for me to compare the book to, and let's not forget the foolish posts weak minded people are making online which helped me to explain just HOW wrong they are. If they were just out there quietly, I'd be saying "Well, they are making some sort of inappropriate demands." This way I can cite silly things they sputter. All this just real quick from memory, imagine what I could have wrote if I'd had any real time and a way to look things up. Can you imagine a guy offering an argument of the value of ignorance and emotional reaction as his signature? His behavior is certainly that, but he put it there to point the finger at everyone else?
# # # #
Chicago, a city on the edge of forever. It is that speculative world in which I see the story of 'Who Moved my cheese?' unfold. For the inner story of the "Little People" in their maze world is told to a gathering of friends in a place refered to as "Chicago," in a gathering portrayed as timelessly as the cheese hunting story. Although only a few pages are devoted to the group of friends at the beginning and the end, the story is about the extent to which the individual friends each resemble the little people, and which they might resemble more than the other.This comes at a time that the Film/Television industry faces what will probably be a series of strikes as first writers and then actors seek a larger share of preprofit revenues, and other collective bargain groups within the industry then following with "Me, too" labor actions. The studios that fund the films wish to minimize payments during the time that the initial investment is recovered, while neither the writers nor the actors care if the initial investments are ever recovered and want more money long before recoupment. An enormous collision is anticipated as factions within the actors are fighting further to cut off those who do not make a fulltime living as actors, meaning 85-90% of the members of the Screen Actors Guild and the Association of Film, Television, and Radio Artists, from pension and healthcare benefits. This at a time when filmmaking, much like manufacturing, is moving increasingly out of Hollywood and often out of the country. This is incorrectly referred to as "Runaway Production."
The inner story focuses on Hem and Haw, the little people who have far more to do than the mice because of the complications they build into all actions. The little people would seem more adaptable at first, but it would prove to be adaptive in the worst ways. They changed only to suit perceived security, in this case a site which seems to provide a lifelong supply of cheese, while the mice seemed to not recognize security. When the security ended with the disappearance of the cheese from 'Cheese Station C,' the mice were largely unchanged from the beginning of the story. In that way they adapted quickly to the change, which the little people then resisted.
The mice then become the model of virtuousity for their quick response to their problem. Though they seem to be rewarded for making the right choice, they are in fact incapable of choosing and simply find new cheese because it is all they know. Hem, the most inflexible of the little people, will accept only the model of success he has come to know. Hem is capable of arguing, of demanding, of refusing, and tries to use this approach as his skills for gaining what he wants. He does not want to find new cheese, he wants the old cheese in the old location of Cheese Station C. And he will continue to cite his reasons for wanting it there until he gets it. Regardless if there is noone at Cheese Station C to give it to him.
Haw, the other of the little people, would wish to share Hem's faith in the strength of the idea that the cheese should come back, but he is confronted by the reality that the cheese is gone, and there's no reason to believe it will come back because of any argument with it being gone. Haw becomes the everyman figure for the reader, his efforts embody the message of letting go of any false sense of security one may have. The characters basic search for new security is not resolved by the end of the story, even with a new source of cheese he will not be able to rest assured that he will never again need to search for more. The message resolves as the only security available is the ability to adapt to change.
The story ultimately is not about the mice or the little people, but those hearing this story at the reunion in Chicago. The inner story is too simplistic, too black and white, and outside the bounds of reality to avoid the honest reaction of the reader to say "I know, I KNOW, already." The listeners at the reunion might have began as people not resistant to change, but resistant to NOT KNOWING WHAT that change would be. The inner story is intended to soften the reader to the idea of resembling the little people. They see Hem as far too extreme in his resistance to truly reflect themselves, yet they realize that they lack the boldness of even the hesitant Haw.The stories, both in the inner story of the mice and the little people and the additional tale of the friends at the reunion hearing the story, are highly relevant to the Hollywood situation. Like Hem, many of the actors and writers are unwilling to adapt to the present situation, insisting they wish to follow agreements negotiated in the 1950's and before, one has foolishly cited the age of the Magna Carte as somehow proving the relevance of ancient agreements. (The Magna Carte itself has long ago ceased to be direct law.) They readily disregard any practice from these bygone times that does not appeal to them but try to demand that only the parts they like shall be applicable.
In this, many in the unions have taken the position much like Hem. Much complaining is done of productions mounted away from the safe confines of Hollywood where so many actors live. Some howl and scream of imaginary "Laws" that are broken when entertainment programs are produced away from where they would like them to be. In one instance, the Screen Actors Guild spent over $50,000 of the members money on a "Petition" to the U.S. Government claiming that under trade laws Canada was committing a crime by allowing American Producers to take productions there. Figuratively, if not literally, the responsible Government agencies laughed at them.
Also, as smaller outlets like cable television create new jobs, many attempt to demand that they be forced to adopt the same high payscales as broadcast television, in spite of the smaller revenues and resulting smaller budgets. There is much finger pointing and accusing as the new jobs, far more employment being available than in the past, pay somewhat less than the major network standard. People are working who would otherwise not be working, yet they insist they are somehow being cheated.
So I would compare the leadership of the Hollywood unions to Hem, in not only refusing to adapt but in fact becoming militant in their demands that the cheese as they've known it be brought back to 'Cheese Station C.' They would attempt to claim they are in fact the mice, immediately scurrying after new cheese. But in fact there are so few that are even so bold as Haw, there is little of even the most hesitant looks at what is really happening in the industry, and noone is committing to embracing changes that might allow them to work more even it it means initially making less than $2,500/week for bit part acting. That would not be the old cheese, and they only want the old cheese. Regardless if there are no producers at Cheese Station C to give it to them.
