A WGA Event Worth Checking Out
Posted by Craig Mazin on 24 Feb 2009 at 10:58 pm | Tagged as: WGA Issues
Got this from my friend Michael Tabb, who volunteers on the WGA Events committee…
STUDIO DEVELOPMENT: FROM SCRIPT TO GREENLIGHT (free event, free parking) Thursday, 2/26, 7:30 p.m. WGA Theater, 135 S. Doheny Dr., Beverly Hills. RSVP: (323) 782-4602. On the Thursday after the Oscars, join the WGA Writers Education Committee in a discussion about studio feature development today and all the players, from scribe all the way up the “ladder.”
Panelists include: the screenwriter Jonathan Hensleigh (Armageddon, The Punisher, The Rock); JC Spink from BenderSpink management; development executive Navid McIlhargey (Sr. VP of Production at New Regency; previously of Silver Pictures); producer Derek Dauchy (President of Davis Entertainment); studio executive David Beaubaire (VP of Production at Paramount; previously studio executive of DreamWorks and Warner Brothers – he knows how each works); and a Surprise Guest. And if you just want to just support me, I have the responsibility of moderating the panel.
At the end of the panel, there will be an audience Q&A via note cards, where we will ask this group of execs YOUR burning questions (in case I missed it). What do you most want answered by those who hold our dreams in their hands? I will try to get real answers. Think about it…
Members in good standing, plus a guest. It is also open to film school students and alumni from USC, UCLA, and NYU Tisch west as well. Seats are limited. Please tell and forward this to your writing staffs, team you went on strike with, all your writer friends and writing groups. This is going to be a very informative night with an opportunity to get to know these big, behind-the-scenes decision-makers who can get our projects made, which means something in this economy.
Any chance this will be released as a podcast?
Seems to be a little odd to single out these specific film schools only.
Maybe they could consider a similar event open to independents and others who may not yet be in the WGA or have not attended one the ordained schools.
To be honest, I don’t know much about this stuff. Maybe Michael will swing by at some point to address the questions.
Here’s another WGA event: Disciplining Jay Leno.
VG
Even though Leno wrote his own monologues during the strike, he nonetheless did not provide NBC/Universal with any writing services covered by the MBA. The charges against him further evidence the same contemptuous ignorance of our contract that has been endemic to WGAW leadership and staff for the last four years … and resulted in our giving back EST residuals on over 30 years of movies and tv shows.
-Ted
This is slightly off topic, but can someone explain how wgaw and wgae could have two different voting requirements for voting on contracts? I saw something on sagwatch about this and i don’t understand how there came to be two different sets of qualifications.
Also, thanks Craig for your piece on our negotiations. It was spot on.
Thanks
Sagmember –
Given their names, you’d imagine that the WGA West and the WGA East are two local branches of a national union called the “Writers Guild of America,” right?
Similar to how SAG/Hollywood and SAG/New York are local branches of the national Screen Actors Guild? With a national constitution that is parent to each of the branches’ constitutions?
Nope.
There is no actual legally constituted national union called the “Writers Guild of America.” The WGAW and WGAE are two separate unions that operate jointly as a collective bargaining representative.
This is more akin to a situation wherein, say, two unions that both represent electricians — call ‘em the Electricians Union and the Brotherhood of Electricians — agree to negotiate a joint contract with an employer that covers both electricians that work in the plant (under EU’s jurisdiction) and electricians that work in the field (under BOE’s jurisdiction). Each of those unions can establish its own voting standards, regardless of what the other union’s voting standards are.
(Although even that is not a perfect analogy. In that case, the contract would delineate each union’s jurisdiction, and so, direct electrician-employees to join one or the other union. The WGAE-WGAW contracts don’t do that — they simply direct writers to join one union or the other, but draw no distinction between the two).
Anyway, because the WGAE and WGAW are two separate unions, and because the affiliation agreement did not previously require identical voting standards, it was arguably legal for each union to establish its own voting standards, regardless of what the other union’s standards were.
Which is what happened.
-Ted
sagmember:
The short answer is that the WGAw and WGAE are two completely separate unions with separate constitutions and separate governing bodies.
In each of their constitutions there is a common article describing how the two unions agree to affiliate with each other for the purposes of negotiating a common collective bargaining agreement.
They have, however, very different articles describing how members become and remain eligible.
Once we get the details of the proposed common membership standards, I’ll do a piece on it laying out what is and what is being suggested…and whether or not I think writers should vote for or against it.
Thank you both, that was very helpful. I didn’t understand how it was possible, as I thought it was one national union.
Thanks!
“Even though Leno wrote his own monologues during the strike, he nonetheless did not provide NBC/Universal with any writing services covered by the MBA.”
Ted, when you offer opinions like this, you really should clarify that you have no legitimate authority, and that this is just the opinion of an armchair contract reader.
The writing of the monologue on the Tonight Show is covered by the MBA, and writing for a struck show during a strike is a specific and direct violation of WGA rules. That’s an opinion rendered by an attorney. Yours is an opinion rendered by an amateur.
One of the problems we all have navigating these waters is the preponderance of Guild members and officials who want to present themselves as authories on matters it can take years of law school to fully understand. I’m sure you think your opinion is final and that you’ve done the work, but it isn’t and you haven’t. When you make statements like this one, you are engaging in the exact same behavior as that of the people you’re criticizing.
Give it a rest. You’re not half the expert you play on the internet.
Hmmm. I was under the impression that Ted was a lawyer… But, then, I’m just a ‘half an expert’ on that too…
I don’t pretend to have a very good grasp of things, but I note that Appendix A to the MBA states, at page 413:
“the following shall be excluded from the definition of literary material:
“….
“d. material written by the person who delivers it on the air unless such person has written material for delivery by another person as well as by himself/herself on that particular program;”
Apparently the Guild believes that once the contract has expired, definitions like this no longer count and strike rules can be written that would cover the material excluded in this provision. That seems to be what the current disciplinary proceeding is really about.
VG
Grand Nagus –
Is that another opinion rendered by that same attorney?
Because its wrong.
First, the MBA does not cover “the writing of the monologue on the Tonight Show.”
Like any collective bargaining agreement, the MBA covers employees.
But not all employees — only those employees who provide personal services of writing literary material as defined in the MBA, ie, writer-employees
Appendix A of the MBA establishes the Guild’s jurisdiction over employees who provide services writing literary material (as defined in the MBA) for use in comedy-variety shows. Appendix A also establishes certain exclusions to the Guild’s jurisdiction.
F’r instance:
In the case of a non-primetime more-than-once-a-week comedy-variety show (like The Tonight Show), if someone employed in the capacity of “performer” writes material for himself to perform on a particular program and for no one else …
… then that material does not constitute literary material for the purposes of the MBA (Appendix A, Article 1.A.5.d, sometimes known as the “AFTRA exception”).
That alone proves that, contrary to what you may have been told, the statement “the writing of the monologue for the Tonight Show is covered by the MBA” is wrong.
Sometimes the monologue is subject to the MBA, and sometimes its not — and whether or not its subject to the MBA is dependent on factors other than, is it being written by an employee of a Signatory Company?
But, that’s not all.
Appendix A also says that that the MBA does not cover any services — including writing services — performed by individuals employed in the capacity of Executive Producer (Appendix A, Article 3.C.4)
So, once again, this proves that the opinion “the writing of the monologue for the Tonight Show is covered by the MBA” is wrong.
The writing of monologues for the Tonight Show by an Executive Producer is explicitly and specifically not covered by the MBA.
Additionally: unlike is the case in primetime drama and sitcoms, the “Writers Employed in Additional Capacities” article of the MBA does not apply under Appendix A (Appendix A Article 14). This means that there is no fuzziness between Leno’s compensation as an Executive Producer and his compensation as a Writer.
Since Leno was not being compensated for his writing services during the strike (and the Guild has made no effort to get him compensated for those services), he could only possibly have either been providing writing services in his capacity as an Executive Producer –
– which are not covered by the MBA, and so outside the Guild’s jurisdiction –
– or writing material for himself to perform on air in his capacity as a Performer –
– which material is not covered by the MBA, and so outside the Guild’s jurisdiction.
Which means, Jay Leno did not provide personal services of writing literary material as defined in the MBA during the WGA’s strike against MBA signatories. Although he provided performing and producing services for a struck company, and although he wrote his own monologues, he nonetheless did not work under Guild jurisdiction during the strike.
The opinion rendered by the attorney you referenced is wrong. And, as I said previously, perfectly in keeping with the same contemptuous ignorance of our contract that the WGAW has shown for the last four years, most disastrously during the negotiation.
The only way the Guild ends up taking any kind of actual disciplinary action against Leno (like a fine or a public apology or whatever) is if Leno agrees to be so disciplined. Personally, I hope he doesn’t.
-Ted
The Grand Nagus:
You’re just flat out wrong about this. Ted doesn’t need any authority to read and understand the plain language of our collective bargaining agreement.
Furthermore, the WGAw knows that Leno didn’t violate the contract.
And the WGAw knows that Leno went above and beyond the call of duty vis a vis his staff, financial support thereof, etc.
This is obnoxious grandstanding by the WGAw, in order to instill some kind of continuing fear in the membership, should we strike again.
And in other news, last night’s Studio Development panel was incredibly interesting and incredibly refreshing. The free rewrite issue came up and the perspectives were interesting. They can roughly be summed up like this:
Producers/Execs — Of course they ask for free rewrites. Sometimes that’s what’s necessary to deliver a draft that the studio will respond to, and you only get one chance to get it right.
Fellow-writer Jonathan Hensleigh — Just do it. I do think he was talking about writers at his level (he’s at the top end of the pay scale). His point was don’t be lazy. They’re paying you a butt load of money, how bout you do a little work. He mentioned his days working for a big manhattan law firm (which gave me flashbacks to my own life experience). For $100,000 he worked 90 hour weeks, so putting in a little extra work for his seven figure salary doesn’t really phase him.
Fellow-writer Michael Tabb — He’s never done free rewrites and he’s never been asked to do free rewrites. He delivers solid drafts (he does three drafts for every draft he delivers). I think it was him that mentioned that some writers don’t bother to turn in their best work because they figure it’s going to be developed anyway. I was surprised to hear that, and I don’t know how representative his experience is, but I’ve never been asked to do a free rewrite either. Instead, when producers or execs wanted additional work, they exercised the optional steps in my contract.
I’m early enough in my career to not have much perspective on the free rewrite problem (and hopefully my luck will hold and the issue won’t arise in my career), but I found the two writers perspectives interesting.
““d. material written by the person who delivers it on the air unless such person has written material for delivery by another person as well as by himself/herself on that particular program;”
Apparently the Guild believes that once the contract has expired, definitions like this no longer count and strike rules can be written that would cover the material excluded in this provision. That seems to be what the current disciplinary proceeding is really about.”
Since none of us are in the room, none of us can say with any authority what the proceeding is about. However, your statement is in direct contradiction with the MBA, which stipulates clearly that material you write for yourself to perform is only disqualified from the definition so long you don’t also write material for other people. Since Leno writes for the show, and not just himself, the work he does for his monologue is clearly not disqualified from the MBA’s definition of literary material.
Ted,
Excuse me for speaking colloquially. I wasn’t aware you were going to play word games with my casual motif. I know what the MBA is, Professor Gotcha.
As you acknowledge, and as I addressed above, the disqualification only applies if you don’t also write material for other people. Since Leno does, it’s a moot point.
Your other point is more devious, but really, you’re just playing games with the rules while ignoring their clear intent. You can try to make the case that during a strike, anyone who is employed on a show as a writer and a producer is not acting as a writer when they write, since they’re not being paid as a writer, but that’s a weasel’s defense.
If your intent is to aid Jay Leno’s defense, you’ve failed. If your intent is to present yourself as a legal authority, you’ve failed again.
Craig,
You state that the WGA knows Leno didn’t violate the MBA. I hope you won’t take it personally if I’m not among those who will accept any unsupported claim coming out of your keyboard as the unequivocal truth. Since your friend Ted has yet to show how “obvious” it is that they’re ignoring the terms of the MBA, I’d appreciate it if you’d back up your statement. It’s quite possible you have access to information that I do not, but based on what I’ve read about the case, and what’s been presented here, your statement needs some support.
Grand Nagus:
I can’t produce audiotape or anything. It’s my opinion that they know he didn’t violate the MBA. Nothing more.
My opinion is based on my understanding of the circumstances that initially surrounded the dispute, and that understanding is based on conversations I’ve had with some people.
As such, I feel justified in proffering the opinion, but in no way should anyone just accept it as fact. Your skepticism is warranted. Presume that in the absence of evidence, everything I write on my blog is my opinion.
We’ll just have to see how it all shakes out for Mr. Leno, whose life will no doubt be severely impacted by the outcome of this union trial.
On that particular program. Just ’cause you don’t mention it your post doesn’t mean its not in the contract.
So, in pursuit of prosecuting Jay Leno, the Guild is advancing the legal position that the term “program” as used in the Appendix A means “a series of programs”?
So where Appendix A Article 13.B.2.a establishes that the “Minimum Compensation per Program” for Comedy/Variety shows of 60 minutes duration … it is now the Guild’s legal position that it means that NBC/Universal only has to pay a Tonight Show writer $11,884 over the entire run of the Tonight Show, no matter how many *individual programs* of the Tonight Show he actually works on?
Instead $11,884 for each episode, as program has always been interpreted by both the Guild and the AMPTP Companies, and enforced by the Guild?
There is no basis for the prosecution of Jay Leno as a “strikebreaker” or “scab” or whatever name you want to call him that is consistent with the terms of the MBA and its bargaining and enforcement history.
And the one that the WGAW has manufactured is not only — say it with me — contemptuously ignorant of the MBA and its bargaining and enforcement history, it also provides grounds for the Companies to likewise ignore those things.
-Ted
And, there it is.
Jay Leno is being persecuted not because he was an employee under Guild jurisdiction during the strike. Not because he was getting union wages for a doing a union job during a union strike. Not because he was a scab.
No, the WGAW is going after Jay Leno because, during the period his writing contract was suspended, he wrote something outside Guild jurisdiction that would constitute “literary material” if he’d written it under Guild jurisdiction.
Will the WGAW be now disciplining every Guild member who writes something outside Guild jurisdiction that would constitute “literary material” if written under Guild jurisdiction?
Or only every Guild member who, during the period their writing contracts were suspended during the strike, wrote something outside Guild jurisdiction that would constitute “literary material” if written under Guild jurisdiction?
Or at least every Guild member who, during the period their writing contracts were suspended during the strike, wrote something outside Guild jurisdiction that would constitute “literary material” if written under Guild jurisdiction that is subsequently used as part of a production by a Signatory Company?
If a Guild member sells a spec screenplay he wrote during the strike, will the WGAW be going after him the same way they are going after Jay Leno?
If a Guild member wrote a novel during the strike that is subsequently licensed and adapted into a movie by a Signatory Company, will the WGAW pursue disciplinary action against him?
Will the WGAW continue to enforce its policy that anything written by any Guild member employed by a Signatory Company in any capacity is “literary material” as defined by MBA — and so, work-made-for-hire, and owned by the Company — even if the writer is not paid for it?
Because that is the legal position the WGAW has taken in regards to Jay Leno.
Even though the Company did not compensate Jay Leno in accordance with the MBA during the strike, the WGAW nonetheless maintains that anything he wrote during the strike was nonetheless “literary material” subject to the MBA … and so, owned by the Company.
Even though a Guild member in good standing did not provide services of writing literary material during the strike, and was not compensated for services of writing literary material in accordance with the MBA, because the Company used that material in a production, the WGAW has made him the target of an ideologically-driven witch hunt. Or, if you prefer, scab hunt.
This action by the WGAW is arbitrary, discriminatory and a violation of the Guild’s duty of fair representation (heck, even though the WGAW is claiming that Leno did work that is usually done by Guild members, they aren’t even trying to enforce the terms of the MBA on his behalf — which, believe it or not, unions must do, even in the case of scab employees).
You say “Jay Leno was not employed in a union job during a union strike” is a “weasel’s defense” against charges that he was employed in a union job during a union strike?
I say this action by the “Scab Hunters” Committee is a disgraceful boondoggle perpetrated, encouraged and supported by a bunch of yahoos, dilettantes and self-styled “militants” who have no fucking clue what they are doing, and absolutely zero respect for writers.
-Ted
Ted,
Your argument seems to boil down to the proposition that if someone writes for a signatory company but it doesn’t say “writer” on their paycheck, then they’re not a scab. I think Nagus’s characterization of this as a “weasel defense” is spot on. If it were a valid interpretation, we all could have kept on writing through the strike.
Nagus only pointed out the many flaws in your argument. He hasn’t actually condemned Leno or anyone else.
Sometimes it’s hard to grasp your points, because you can be very unclear in your writing, but do you really want us to believe that of all the attorneys on either side in this particular case, it is only Ted Elliot – amateur lawyer – who grasps the full meaning of the MBA? Has it occurred to you that if your reading were at all valid, that Leno’s lawyers would have made this problem go away instantly?
There’s a dilettante here, that’s for sure.
Bill –
Guild lawyers did not know that terms in a collective bargaining agreement are prospective unless they specifically establish retroactivity. That’s why the EST rate in the 2008 MBA does not apply to any movies or tv shows produced before February 2008.
Guild lawyers did not know that the part of the 2004 MBA that established that all terms covering internet residuals applied to movies and tv shows produced since July 1971 was in some way important. That’s why the Guild proposed a revision of those terms that cut that part from the 2008 MBA.
Guild lawyers did not know that the WGAW cannot expel someone from membership based on where he resides, as the constitution and affiliation agreement were amended three years ago to require. That’s why the newly-proposed voting standards amendments strike those things.
Guild lawyers did not know that any non-union employees who could be covered under the MBA would already be exempt from overtime wages. That’s why the Guild has made no mention of the fact that those “reality writer” overtime lawsuits have been settled — because it establishes that, regardless of anything else, all the employees the Guild calls “reality writers” could not be covered under the MBA.
Believe it or not, there are a lot of lawyers in the world who are expert on contract law, labor law, collective bargaining agreements and even the MBA and its bargaining and enforcement history. They’re easy to find — just not at the WGAW.
-Ted
It does.
Ted,
Thank you for the recitation of errors made by Guild attorneys. Once again, your meaning is as clear as mud. Do you intend for this recitation to be proof that you are a qualified attorney? Large questions remain unanswered, and your incendiary comments about the Guild and fellow writers remain unsubstantiated.
I’ve explained how the so-called “AFTRA exception” doesn’t hold water here, and you have not acknowledged that. You’ve also been called twice on what I labelled your “weasel” defense, which is so cockamamie I have to think you’re kidding.
Lastly, if this interpretation of the MBA you subscribe to is so legally astute, why haven’t Leno’s attorneys jumped all over it?
A list of incidents in which Guild lawyers were wrong is not an answer, no matter how gratifying it is to you personally. Can you offer something to the readers here that will be more useful in understanding the MBA than in advancing the legend of Ted Elliot, Amateur Attorney?
Ted,
The Nagus is a little on the sarky side, but his points seem valid. I’m not entirely sure if I’m understanding your defense of Guild members who write during the strike, but then I’m not sure I understood the plots of the last two Pirates movies, so….
Steve A –
“I’m not sure I understood the plots of the last two Pirates movies, so…”
that’s ok, just ask any of the 100,000,000 teenagers who did
Steve A, I’m not sure I understand Nagus’ plot. Leno didn’t violate the MBA and Bill Hunt, like it or not, a show runner who did writing work as a producer during the strike also didn’t violate the strike rules, however one might feel about that emotionally.
Nagus, as for skewering Ted for not being a lawyer, don’t be ridiculous. Even non-lawyers can read and understand contracts, and as someone who actually went to law school, let me clear up any confusion: you don’t spend your 3 years in law school mastering how to read a contract. Not even remotely. Most people take one semester of contract law in law school and that’s it, and even then you don’t master how to read and understand a contract, you read a bunch of case law and learn what a contract is. Try arguing on the merits and leave the character assassination aside. It’s just ignorant.
Paula,
” Leno didn’t violate the MBA and Bill Hunt, like it or not, a show runner who did writing work as a producer during the strike also didn’t violate the strike rules”
Which brings us right back to the beginning.
Believe it or not, Paula, not everyone here has an axe to grind, or belongs to one “side” of this argument. Some of us are just trying to get to the facts, and every time you or Ted or some other regular posts an unfounded assertion like this, it just illustrates how pointless these discussions can be.
Ted made the same assertion about Leno, and his reasoning was promptly shot down in detailed fashion. His only response was to note that in the past, WGA lawyers have made mistakes. That doesn’t have any bearing on the question, though, Paula, and you re-asserting the same thing as Ted with the same lack of support is pointless.
Apparently, it’s only character assassination when the cricism is directed at someone you agree with, because Ted has called the board of the Guild and their attorneys every name in the book, and you haven’t squawked.
As a dues paying member of the WGA who is as capable as any of you of reading the MBA, I would like to hear ONE of you people explain honestly and cogently how it is that what is so clear to so many is wrong. Just saying it is doesn’t make it so, and none of you have addressed Nagus’s dissection of Ted’s argument yet.
It really feels like there’s a gang mentality at work here. The very act of questioning certain people’s conclusions – no matter how shoddily formed and backed up they are – is cause for alarm and censure.
Bill Hunt #28: Ted provided a detailed foundation for his assertions in his posts #13, 19 and 20 above.
You don’t like that Jay Leno went back on the air during the strike. You want to see him punished. But that doesn’t make the WGA automatically correct in asserting that Leno violated the MBA — the MBA has actual language defining what a member’s obligations and rights are.
Go back to Ted’s posts and show where what he has said is in error. Simply stating that it isn’t true because you don’t want to believe it is not a valid argument — even if you think in doing exactly that, the Ferengi is wielding a fearsome scalpel of justice.
No, its proof that whether or not someone is an attorney is not the measure of whether or not someone is capable of understanding the terms of a contract, contract law, and the laws that govern collective bargaining and unions.
But, please, continue with your ad hominem attack on my qualifications to express an informed-by-fact-and-verified-by-research opinion on a legal matter, in lieu of mounting any kind of actual defense of the Guild. That more than anything else indicates how utterly without merit the Guild’s case against Leno really is.
-Ted
Stuart,
Sadly, you’ve made my point. The level of intellectual honesty here can be pretty fairly illustrated by your post- one either slavishly agrees with everything Ted Elliot (or Craig Mazin) posts, or one must be “the opposition.” I’ve said nothing here to indicate my position on the Leno situation. But having the audacity to question the reasoning on display immediately causes you to leap to the conclusion that I want to hang him.
While you may not be interested in getting the facts right, Stuart, some of us are. Personally, I think Leno is being railroaded, but I find the technical arguments being made here less than convincing, and I think Nagus made some solid points that Ted has ignored. Once again, he tells us that sometimes Guild lawyers make mistakes as though this is proof that he does not. This sort of reasoning belongs in a schoolyard, not in courtroom.
I’ll stop posting here, though, because it’s clear that anyone who dares to question the self-styled authorities who run this place are not welcome, and will be subject to personal insults rather than reason.
I came here convinced Leno was being screwed. I leave here just as convinced, but equally convinced that there are enormous assholes on both sides of the question, and I would hate to be Leno, stuck in between these two factions.
Nagus, thank you for being the one voice of calm reason in the middle of this stupid and heated exchange.
Bill Hunt #31: neither you nor the Ferengi poobah have actually questioned the reasoning on display. You’ve simply denied that it exists. Neither of you have attempted to address any of Ted’s points directly, except in post #16 — and Ted explains quite clearly in post #19 why the Ferengi’s logic is a load of felgarkarb (to mix metaphors from cheesy sci-fi shows from decades past).
For someone who only wants facts and who has no axe to grind, you seem very resistant to the plain recitation of facts Ted set forth in his posts (#13, 19 & 20). You say you don’t understand them, or you don’t believe them, or you don’t believe they even exist… but other than a petulant attitude, you don’t seem willing to address any of them to clarify your understanding or to put forth counter-arguments.
On the other hand, if your total understanding of Ted’s posts is that he says the Guild’s lawyers make mistakes and your idea of solid rebuttal is the word “weasel” and the phrase “you’re not a lawyer,” perhaps you’re right about not being able to get any value out of the commentary on this site.
I am confused.
My understanding (based entirely on published information) is that the charge against Leno is solely related to him writing monologues for himself. That type of work seems pretty clearly to be excluded from the MBA under Appendix A. I have not heard any claim that Leno was writing material for others, except in a comment posted here.
Jonathan Handel wrote, last year, that the WGA was taking the position that its strike rules could forbid work that went beyond the MBA, because the MBA had expired. The strike rules said “no writing” and the monologue exception didn’t apply. I think Handel’s reasoning is pretty fishy and don’t agree with it. But if he is accurately reporting the WGA’s position — that is, not that Leno was performing work covered by the MBA, but that the MBA didn’t matter — that’s a whole different kettle of fish from what’s being discussed here.
So here are my questions:
Does the WGA contend that Leno was writing for anyone other than himself?
If he was writing only for himself, is there any doubt that the exception for variety show monologues in Appendix A would apply under the MBA?
If the Appendix A exception covers Leno’s writing of his own material, does the WGA in fact contend that it is empowered to promulgate strike rules that prohibit work that doesn’t fall under the MBA?
VG
Bill:
I’m going to try and simmer this debate back down to the substance, rather than the personalities involved.
For me, I think the big question is “Why?”
Why is the WGAw going after Leno? Let’s presume one of the following is true:
The functional word for me is “technically.” No matter what happens here, there will be some level of ambiguity. So I thus revert to the bigger question. Why prosecute Leno when he proved himself to be a great friend to his writing staff? Why prosecute Leno when the only difference between him and Letterman is the fact that Letterman owns his own show (i.e. Letterman is an employer, and Leno is not)?
In the end, Letterman made life no more or less difficult for the companies than Leno did.
So what’s to be gained by this?
The strike is over, there’s nothing we could have done or can ever do to keep talk shows off the air during strikes, and this pursuit of Jay feels vindictive and petty at this point. If I could see a convincing upside, I suppose I might feel more motivated to question the legality of the self-written monologues, but does anyone really think screenwriters or television writers are going to be encouraged to scab during a future strike simply because Leno’s show (like everyone else’s) remained on the air?
In the absence of compelling logic, I can only assume this action is about pride and anger.
Grand Nagus,
You just go ahead believing that attorneys are (a priori) experts while laymen (a priori) aren’t.
I’m an attorney. I’ve practiced for five years and I spent a year clerking for a federal district judge. I have been through a number of trials and observed many more. When friends ask me about whether and how to go about hiring an attorney, I tell them the following:
Attorneys are like superheroes, with one superpower: To completely fuck up their clients’ cases.
Got a loser case? 99% of the time, your attorney can’t turn it into a winner. But the opposing attorney can sure fuck it up and toss it to you. Got a winner? If an attorney does his or her job, you’ll win. But if the attorney is lazy, stupid, absentminded, overworked, overconfident, or has one of a million other human frailties, they sure as hell can lose it for you.
Law school isn’t really about learning a set of laws. (Mainly it’s about keeping people out of the practice of law.) Most of the graduates of a top, national law school are in fact completely ignorant of most actual laws (since most laws vary by state). Learning the textbook law is what you do afterwards, when you’re studying for the bar. Anybody can do that. Any layman can understand labor law. It’s not really that difficult. It just takes time and attention to detail. Which are two things many, many attorneys lack.
Given the choice between listening to an average lawyer or an attentive, intelligent and well-read layman on the state of a particular body of law, I’ll listen to the layman any time.
Re: STUDIO DEVELOPMENT: FROM SCRIPT TO GREEN LIGHT
The colleges listed were because members of the WGA Writer’s Education Committee specifically asked for their schools to be cleared in advance for admission due to the venue size.
I got the feeling policies of admission change per event and number of seats. In the end, I bet if you just showed up, it was open to all potential future WGA members. We had a 525+ seat theater fill, and we did. So however they chose to run admission, it worked.
The evening was audio recorded and will be available for listening in the WGA library on the first floor, corner of Third & Fairfax. I asked, but my union liaison said the WGA does not make copies publicly available.
Please feel free to email me with any further readers’ questions, Craig. I’m entirely at your disposal. I am waist deep in a writing job on deadline, so I’m sorry I did not check in sooner. Thanks so much again for letting your readers know about it!
Voiceguy –
You’re making the same assumption Handel made: that the WGAW’s legal position is in some way consistent with the terms of the MBA (that’s why the best argument that Handel could come up with in support of the WGAW’s position was, as you so charitably put it, “fishy”).
Whereas, the WGAW’s position is dependent on the WGAW’s interpretation of the terms of the MBA.
At one of the outreach meetings during the strike, I asked WGAW Board members Phil Rosenthal and Tom Schulman what Leno was supposed to have done that violated strike rules.
Phil said “He’s doing the same work that writers usually do.”
I said, “Seriously?”
Tom said “That’s what Tony Segall said.”
That statement can only even be arguably true if one interprets the MBA’s definition of “writer” — an employee contracted provides personal services of writing literary material as defined in the MBA — to mean, an employee who provides general writing services required by the production process.
Given that interpretation, any exclusion in the MBA that is based on the definition of “literary material” — like the performer’s exclusion in Appendix A — is irrelevant to the issue of the Guild’s jurisdiction over employees, or enforcement of its strike rules.
This interpretation is also inclusive of any employee who provides general writing services for an MBA signatory, regardless of whether they’ve been contracted in the job of “writer” or not. If a producer-employee provides general writing services required by the production process, the producer-employee is under Guild jurisdiction. If a director-employee provides general writing services required by the production process, same thing.
So, the part of the MBA that excludes certain type of writing services when performed by a non-writer employee — called the “A-H” exclusions — also becomes irrelevant.
Hence, the Guild strike rule that sought to prohibit Guild members from performing A-H services even if they were employed only in the capacity of producer or director.
And, also made irrelevant: the part of Appendix A that specifically excludes any services — including writing services — preformed by an Executive Producer, a Senior Producer, or any one else employed in a capacity not covered by an existing Guild contract.
As long as the WGAW’s position is that the MBA gives the Guild jurisdiction over any employee of an MBA signatory who provides any writing services required by the production process, it allows the WGAW to maintain that Leno was working under Guild jurisdiction during the strike.
But if the WGAW actually admits that Leno was not working under Guild jurisdiction during the strike — it means that the WGAW has conceded its particular interpretation of the MBA as covering any employee who provides general writing services required by the production process.
But since that interpretation is fundamental to the entire Reality Organizing Campaign — in fact, its the only justification for making reality jurisdiction a strike issue in MBA negotiations — that’s not going to happen.
-Ted
Missed it, but thanks so much for posting about events like these.