Verrone Lies, Young Shoots The Messenger?
Posted by Craig Mazin on 07 Sep 2009 at 09:04 pm | Tagged as: WGA Issues
One of the strangest events of the WGA strike centered around Jay Leno. I wrote about it back then, but to bring you all up to speed, here’s basically what happened.
(Ed. Note: Nikki Finke is all over this.)
Jay Leno was, by all accounts, one of the good guys. When the WGA went on strike, Jay supported his writers and staff. He visited his writers on the line, and he even paid his non-writing staff out of his own pocket for a couple of months.
So, what was his alleged crime?
He had to return to the airwaves. Like Letterman, he was bound by a performance contract. Unlike Letterman, he didn’t own his own show, so he couldn’t sign an interim agreement.
As such, when he went back, he went back without writers. Well, almost without, and that’s where the dispute began. There’s a good article about this at Variety, and I’m deeply disturbed by the implications contained within.
Jay Leno wrote his own monologue material. This is not against the rules, as far as I can tell. Writing material for one’s own performance is covered by AFTRA, it seems to be allowed by our own MBA, and it wasn’t just me who thought that this was acceptable.
Apparently, Patric Verrone said as much to Jay.
So Jay went back to work and wrote his own monologue.
Now…watch what happens.
First, Verrone allegedly catches a boatload of crap from militants within the Guild who believe that Jay returning to work and writing his own monologue is heretical, and they begin warming up the stake. Doesn’t matter what the law or contracts say. Patric, feeling the heat, calls Leno up a few days later and tells him that he’s changed his mind, and Leno can’t write the monologue.
But wait. There’s more.
Verrone and Young also told Leno that he didn’t have to worry about the WGA making an interim deal with Letterman.
Then Verrone and Young did exactly that.
But wait. There’s more.
Verrone promises Peter Chernin, Bob Iger and Carol Lombardini that the Guild will not press scab charges against Leno.
Then the Guild goes ahead and presses scab charges against Leno. Verrone fails to convey his promise to either the Board of Directors or the Strike Rules Committee.
But wait. There’s more.
The Strike Rules Committee refers this case to a jury of writers…which is the source of all the stuff I’m reporting to you now…a jury made up of rank and file members like you and me…and they find that Leno is innocent. In the aftermath, the jury writes a report stating that the leadership had allowed Leno to be mistreated and smeared to the point where the Guild owes him a frickin’ apology.
(Ed. Note: One of the members of that jury, Bill Taub, has a comment up on Nikki’s site backing his position up…scroll down to find it)
And the Guild’s response? David Young, our employee, says we don’t owe Jay dick.
Actually, it’s a bit worse. David’s comment leads, bizarrely enough, with the point that Jay doesn’t owe us an apology, and “vice-versa.”
Okay. Cue Yakety Sax, because this is the most screwed up thing I’ve seen yet. I thought the fi-core “puny” blacklist letter was bad. I thought the ANTM debacle was bad. I thought the deficit, the $30 million in undistributed foreign levies, the lies about not knowing Wells was talking to the DGA, the Sit Down Shut Up smear…I thought all of that was bad.
Apparently, Verrone was just getting warmed up.
Frankly, if his term weren’t almost up, I’d start a recall. This is the stuff of resignations. The President of the WGAw makes a promise to the AMPTP he’s not authorized to make to not prosecute strike rules against a guy he can’t prosecute anyway and then doesn’t tell the Board or the committee he’s promised to stop?
The President of the WGAw tells the host of The Tonight Show that he can write his own monologue, and then changes his mind and says he can’t?
The President of the WGAw sits by silently as his hand-picked Executive Director throws the jury of writers under the bus by claiming that they just don’t understand the rules? Really?
And who does understand the rules? David Young?
From the article:
Asked why Leno received the conflicting guidance during that period, Young responded, “At the time when we first discussed the matter with Jay on New Year’s Eve, I was not entirely certain how to advise him. A few days later, after the New Year’s holiday, I made the guild’s position clear.”Weasel words. Flat out.
From the Variety article, and from the words of the jury itself, I don’t know how one can conclude that Verrone didn’t lie repeatedly.
I don’t know how one can conclude that Young didn’t lie repeatedly.
I don’t know how many more lies we’re supposed to swallow.
All I know is this: if the blacklisted ficoristas, ANTM writers and Sit Down Shut Up writers didn’t get an apology, I’d advise Jay Leno not to hold his breath. These guys aren’t going to admit what they’ve done no matter how red their hands.
Craig has it exactly right. David Young has been a disaster for this guild. Yes, when John McLean was fired it was indeed time to bring in a more tough-minded, strike-savvy Exec Dir. BUT YOUNG AIN’T THAT GUY. He doesn’t know shit about our industry, pursues an agenda that has nothing to do with the welfare of working writers, lies when cornered, has taken guild finances from surplus to deficit, and has made the WGA both despised for its truculence and ridiculed for its toothlessness–a rare exacta indeed. And then there’s the absurd way our new PAC is being run as a subsidiary of the DNC–which of course serves David Young’s career arc but is a pretty dumb and ham-fisted way to spread the guild’s message in DC.
You missed this beauty of a quote from David Young:
The “so-called AFTRA exception” has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone is required to become WGA members.
And becoming a WGA member has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone is required to obey strike rules.
The “so-called AFTRA exception” makes it clear that the monologues Leno wrote to perform during the strike were not covered by the MBA, which means Leno was not working under Guild jurisdiction during the strike, which means Leno was not violating any strike order or strike rules.
Someone becomes a WGA member by becoming an employee subject to a Guild contract.
Someone becomes required to obey strike rules by becoming either a WGAWest member or WGAEast member, and so agreeing to be subject to one or the other’s constitution, by-laws, working rules, strike rules, and disciplinary procedures.
And there is no fucking way that someone who has spent his career in union organizing, and is now the Executive Director and Chief Negotiator of the WGAWest, does not know this.
He’s not stupid.
But, obviously, he thinks we’re stupid.
If he didn’t, then he wouldn’t talk to us this way.
(paraphrasing Jon Stewart on George W. Bush).
-Ted
Out of all the troubling bits, I find this the worst, if true (from Nikki): “Leno was told by Verrone that the guild was grateful for Leno’s public support of the strike and that he would not face disciplinary action for writing his monologue since Jay was being pressured by NBC to return to work.”
Well folks, either Leno had the right or he didn’t. Whether NBC was “pressuring” him or not should have absolutely nothing to do with formal Guild discipline. Bowing to NBC pressure might have something to do with how some people felt about Leno –having the right to do something does not necessarily make it the right thing to do. But that’s a popularity contest consideration, not a discipline consideration. Guild discipline should be –hell, has to be if ‘rule of law’ means anything at all to you– above that kind of consideration.
If Verrone really felt Leno was breaking the rules and told him it was okay anyway, he dishonored every writer who followed the rules at great personal sacrifice. If Verrone really thought Leno was breaking the rules and told Chernin it was okay, he’s a forelock tugging kowtowing putz. If he did both of those things and then did nothing to deliver on his assurances that WGA would look the other way in spite of the rule breaking, then he’s a very dangerous man to have at the top –if you’re going to jettison principles to play realpolitik you better damn well deliver or here comes WWIII. Also a fool for thinking he could play this game and not have it all find its way into public eventually.
On the other hand, we’ve determined Leno didn’t break the rules –so all this color on what Verrone “thought” may or may not be so much ado about nothing. I’d have to read the transcript. Without all the psychological coloration around it, you could as easily summarize the sequence of events as 1). Verrone told Leno it was okay. 2) Verrone told Chernin it was okay. 3). Trial committee confirms unanimously Verrone was right.
Who brought the charges against Jay? I don’t know the process in WGA. A lot of guilds that could be brought by literally any member in good standing, then staff decides if there is enough there to go forward to a trial committee.
Geo:
The Strike Rules Committee, a separate committee from the trial committee, served as a kind of grand jury to determine whether or not a case should go to trial.
Why isn’t part of Wells’ platform replacing Young? You can always make an excuse for Verrone’s duplicities — you have a television writer trying to run a strike and a union and negotiate with people who have spent their lifetimes in management. But Young? Inexcusable. Yet it seems like a de facto part of this election is proclaiming support for him.
max milton:
I’ve heard Wells speak on this issue. He expresses great admiration for the way David organized the membership prior to the strike, as well as for the way he executed the strike action itself. Wells also believes that we don’t want to get into a SAG-like situation where there’s a rotating door on the ED’s office. A hiring-and-firing cycle leads a union to a place where no one respectable would ever want to take the job.
That said, I’m not a fan of Mr. Young’s, and I remain skeptical of his ability to change and serve our union well. Since both Elias and John seem to be in favor of keeping him, I’ll guess I’ll get the opportunity to see if David improves. I would be happy, indeed, to be wrong about him.
Presumably because John Wells recognizes that staff doesn’t make policy, it just tries to implement it. . . and he’s liked more of what he’s seen from David Young in doing that effectively and loyally than he hasn’t liked. And thus believes Young will do it for him as well, with different policies here and there.
Y’know, back in the day the King never made mistakes (thinking so would be treason). . .it was just those darned “evil advisors”. Hopefully we’ve gotten past that. . .
Young needs to go–that is abundantly clear. The worries about a revolving door are well taken, but the solution is to replace Young with someone we’d like to have in the job for the long haul. And the way to make the E.D. job attractive to a strong candidate–while also protecting WGA members from another arrogant E.D. who pursues an agenda unconnected to the welfare of working writers–is to pay a respectable base salary but spectacular bonuses that are tied to certain measurable levels of MBA enforcement (on late pay, free rewrites, etc.) and tied as well to the attainment of specific (but obviously confidential) terms in our next negotiations. I think most guild members would be shocked to learn how little financial incentive the Brian Waltons, John McLeans, and David Youngs have had to run the WGA in our interest.
Sigh. If you told me our leadership was mentally ill, I’d believe you. At least that would explain it.
It seems that they consider anyone whose actions didn’t strengthen the strike to be an enemy even if they were a clear supporter and complied not only with all relevant agreements, but did more than that. He supported us, and this is the thanks he gets.
“Since both Elias and John seem to be in favor of keeping him, I’ll guess I’ll get the opportunity to see if David improves.”
The key is whether David Young, unlike Doug Allen, understands that a change in administration means that there will be changes in policy that must be implemented by staff from the ED on down.
Organizations often suffer from the Sir Humphrey Appleby syndrome (“Yes, Minister”) in which the civil servant staff member feels secure enough to ignore or shunt aside directives from the elected administration, knowing that elected officials come and go but civil servants are there to stay.
Stuart’s point (#10) is a good one, and that’s why, whichever candidate wins the WGA presidency, we should insist that David Young be subject to the same sort of membership-wide “vote of confidence” that ended up bouncing Brian Walton from the E.D. job (and would no doubt do the same to the vastly less effective Mr. Young).
Off topic: Larry Gelbart, RIP.
StickingWithMyUnion: I am not sure about a membership referendum. The elected leaders are supposed to represent the will of the membership.
Does the guild constitution specify that the ED job in the WGA West is subject to confirmation by a membership referendum or just confirmation by the Board? And if the ED fails to implement the policies adopted by the Board, don’t they have the power to remove him?
Stuart–
Referenda shouldn’t be routine tools of WGA governance, but they can be useful, even eye-opening. In the Brian Walton case approx. 15-20 years ago, the guild’s elected leadership thought Walton was a swell E.D., though he was much maligned, so they essentially put his leadership to a membership referendum, expecting a ringing endorsement that would silence the critics. They were open-mouthed when Walton got thumped in the vote; as a result, he quickly was gone. At least the WGA pres + VP in those days cared what members thought, though they plainly had no clue. We’ve got leaders now who neither know nor care what we think about what a shitty and divisive E.D. we have….and that’s why I think members need to revive the referendum mechanism–not routinely but in these dire times–and use it to send a loud message about botched strikes, depleted treasuries, smear tactics (against Wells; against Leno and the committee that exonerated him); etc. Because every member I know–without exception, every single WGA member I know–thinks that our E.D. is running this guild to ground.
StickingWithMyUnion: I’d say that about six months after the WGA elections, if the ED is still behaving in a way that you and your fellow members find objectionable, it would be appropriate for you to petition for a referendum (provided that the Guild has such a petition process in place). I say that because at that six month point, the new leadership will have had plenty of time to take David Young in hand and give him their direction.
Now, it may be that the new elected leadership is perfectly fine with following the current leadership’s policies and think David is doing a marvelous job. They’d probably be very resistant to a referendum – but that might be all the more reason to hold one. Again, does the Guild constitution provide that such a referendum would be binding on the elected leaders or merely advisory?
Stuart–
–Good question re: WGA constitution. I don’t know the answer.
–Sure hope we have 6 mos to spare. Don’t know that answer, either.
I think John Wells is being honest when he expresses his great admiration for the way Young was able to fire up and organize the troops for a strike and hold an inherently fractious group of people together during it. Herding writers is liking herding cats at the best of times.
I think he also sees keeping Young as both a promise to the hard-liners that he (Wells, that is) isn’t the bend-over-and-grab-his-ankles-for-management type that they fear he is, and a promise to both moderates and hard-liners that he’s going for a “all hands on deck” leadership, rather than trying to run the guild with only the support of one faction or another. Further, I think that’s pretty masterful politics of the best kind –the kind that actually helps you govern after an election is over.
So I pretty strongly suspect Young stays so long as Young wants to stay, and he doesn’t do something pretty unforgiveable post-election.
Stuart, StickingWith –
Since the Board has the sole authority to determine Guild policy (including hiring/firing EDs), referenda are advisory only.
Although I imagine that the Board could institute a policy that made a specific referendum binding.
Matters put to membership votes that are constitutionally binding are:
- Elections
- Ratification of collective bargaining agreements
- Amendments to the WGAW Constitution, including changes in fees and dues
- Strike orders
Ted, can the members initiate a referendum by petition, or must the Board act to put a matter to the members for a vote?
Stuart –
Members have the right to petition for the Board to call a Special Membership Meeting. The petition must state the purpose of the meeting, and no other business can be conducted at the meeting.
So I, at least, would interpret that to mean, if the members petition for a special meeting to conduct a vote on X, then the Board must put X to membership vote at the special meeting.
Thanks, Ted.