The Strikes Begin
Here we go…In September, my term and Ted Elliott’s term on the Board of Directors of the Writers Guild of America, west, will come to an end.
Neither of us are running for reelection.
A lot of people have asked me why. And to be honest, I haven’t been exactly sure what to tell them. On the one hand, it seems quite likely that 2006/2007 will be the busiest year I’ve yet had in this business, and I’ve had some busy ones. As such, I could say that I just don’t have the time to devote to the Board, and given that I already co-chair the Credits Review Committee, I feel like I’m doing enough.
But that wouldn’t be honest.
The truth is that even if I had all the time in the world, I still wouldn’t run again, because I differ wildly from the people currently running the Guild, I differ wildly from the staff currently running the Guild, and I think that the current leadership and staff are driving us in a very dangerous direction.
I don’t have the votes to stop them, nor am I convinced that having the votes would matter. There are serious and fundamental changes in the way decisions are being made at the Guild, from the granting of waivers to the formulation of policy to the negotiation of deals. I don’t like it, and I don’t think it’s going to change any time soon.
As a sitting Board member, I’ve been fairly reluctant to talk about these things while still serving, but my term is nearly up, and I think it’s time for me to get vocal.
The current leadership was swept into office about a year ago, running on a platform that suggested we no longer had to choose between “Strike Or Cave.” Their idea was that by appropriating blue-collar union strategies like corporate campaigns (essentially PR assaults on the companies you need to negotiate deals with), the studios and networks would give us a good deal if we’d just call the dogs off.
I thought this was a bit naive. First, the companies with whom we negotiate are the media. Second, while corporate campaigns detailing abuses like sweat shops can be effective, corporate campaigns attacking “product integration” aren’t going to capture anyone’s imagination.
I’ve never been against corporate campaigns in principle, although I don’t think the WGA has managed to launch an effective one yet. Much dues money has been spent on a product integration corporate campaign, the evidence of which can be seen here and here. These haven’t really caught on. At all. This is not surprising.
What is also not surprising is that the “we don’t have to choose between strike or cave” leadership took their first opportunity to strike. Right now, the writers at America’s Next Top Model are on strike.
I feel for all reality writers. I know reality writers—not merely professionally. For the last six years or so, I’ve been playing cards every week with reality writers. Blind Date, Fifth Wheel, Flavor of Love, Elimidate…these are the people I take money from at the poker table.
I’d like to give some money back. I want, I really want, these writers to get portable pensions, portable health care, reasonable working conditions, minimums and credit protection. So…how do we do that? Is this the way? Strike show by show?
Yup. Most likely. Sure, I get annoyed when I think back to the “we don’t have to strike!” motto, because the truth is that reality writers will have to strike to get a deal. No doubt in my mind.
What also annoys me is that for the last year, the WGA has been pursuing an entirely different strategy, in which all reality would be organized in one fell swoop. The guys who ran on the “no, do it show by show” strategy—like Ted—didn’t win.
And now…but hey. Better late than never.
Look, these guys running the show right now are good people (for the most part) with their hearts in the right places (for the most part) and are pretty smart (for the most part).
But they’re naive. In my humble opinion.
It’s possible that this latest gambit will work. It’s also just as possible that the companies, fearing that the guys in charge at the WGA either want a strike or don’t know how to avoid one, will never give us reality writers because it’s reality that will be their most effective hedge against us when we strike.
Ahem. If we strike.
In the coming weeks and months, I’m going to talk more about these issues, with increasing frankness. However, my criticism isn’t solely for the leadership. I must say that I’ve been deeply disappointed with the quality of the loyal opposition in the WGA over the past few years. Much of it has been either personal or paranoid.
I intend to be neither. I will say nothing here that I wouldn’t say on the phone or in the room with the men and women I’ve been serving with for the past year. Hell, they’ve probably heard most of it already from me. My intention is not to be a traitor or to give comfort to the enemy, but to hold our leadership accountable and be a gadfly in the best tradition.
Maybe I’ll make them better. Because we, including me, need them to be better.
It’s kind of sad that the only way non-guild members can get this kind of information is like this, from this one place.
Paul:
I’m not sure guild members can get this info anywhere else either.
Sometimes I do wonder how effective a guild/union can be in these situations. Because, well, it does feature a distinct mob mentality. If you’re moving with the mob, you’re okay. As long as it’s being led well. But if the mob is going in the wrong direction, and you’re trying to tug it back into normality… good luck. It just seems a little ridiculous.
I’m sure all writers alone are canny and intelligent, and willing to negotiate almost anything under the proper circumstances. Then you find one of these situations where people are bludgeoned by their bosses, and now a few people may help out, a few people may not. The mob mentality is gone, it’s Dog Show Eat Dog Show.
I don’t think that’s how it should work.
Craig,
I commend you on your extracurricular ectivities in the WGA. Kudos for trying to make a difference, seriously! Just one question, when you say…
“I differ wildly from the staff currently running the Guild, and I think that the current leadership and staff are driving us in a very dangerous direction.”
…I wonder, isn’t that the BEST reason to hang in there? To keep these guys on their toes, be a nuissance to those in power, and a hero to your fellow writers? ESPECIALLY when the current leadership is steering things in a “dangerous direction”!
I mean, the idea is to change things, not to be in a cushy club where everybody gets along, no?
DISCLAIMER: I know shite about the inner workings of the WGA. I’ve entered the building 6,7 times before they made script registration an online service. Oh, and once for a screening.
Hey, Craig. Thanks for opening this discussion. Been long awaiting your thoughts on the union.
If I’m following, you support the Top Model strike in theory — strikes are the only way to get reality organized — but you doubt it’ll be effective, given who’s running the WGA at present. Probably isn’t a short answer to this, but can I ask what you would do if you were in charge? Thanks.
Tom:
Good question.
If I were the King of the Foresssst….
I’d actually try and avoid the strike at first. I’d do an election by the books, and if the producers tried to stall by asking for a long NLRB review, I’d bear with them. I’m familiar with a similar situation that occurred on a reality show that the Editors Guild organized. I know some management on that show, so I know that they were very clearly warned that you can’t simply fire people for wanting to organize. It’s illegal.
Furthermore, on that show, even though management was strongly anti-union and did what they could to stall, the election did happen, the editors voted to go union, the Editor’s Guild now represents that shop, one or two editors out of maybe 15 or so weren’t asked back the next season but the rest all were, and no one walked a picket line.
Right now, the WGA doesn’t seem to have the patience for that. Part of the problem is that the culture at the WGA is extremely aggressive right now, and there’s little that can be done to undo that. By breaking ranks with IATSE and the DGA and attempting to organize all of reality for both network and cable all at once, the WGA showed its hand, and its hand was “militance.”
Live by the sword, etc. etc.
I’m encouraged that the leadership is now forgoing than former strategy. Given that this has now become a “test case” for what the AMPTP companies believe will be a much larger war, I’m not sure that a non-strike negotiation would have worked here. I’m also not sure that the companies will allow America’s Next Top Model to give in. I hope they do.
In short, the only way to effect a new strategy would be to first change the leadership of the union in a drastic way. That was the theory, of course, of the current leadership before they became the current leadership. It’s my theory too.
I don’t think the leadership will change drastically any time soon. As one member said to me, “These guys are going to play their strategy out. If it’s a disaster, we’ll come back and pick up the pieces. If it’s not, then we’re all better off.”
That’s sort of where I’m at.
Craig -
You know that I agree with you on most issues of guild politics but I would say that if a group of writers for a reality show, especially a show that is a profit center for a burgeoning new network (Daily Show staff and Colbert Report, are you guys WGA? Why not?) — if these guys themselves are willing to lay it on the line and strike to get organized, then we should absolutely encourage that, show by show if we must. There is no doubt that it will not put the WGA in any sort of major position of strength by 2007, but the corporate campaigns and other silliness so far don’t look one tenth as promising.
As 2007 comes up, I have not the slightest clue what leadership has done to position us to address the most imp. issue that requires addressing: Universal definitions for new media delivery. Corporate campaigns are so far laughable. Tough talking rhetoric has gotten nasty threatening full page trade ads in response. Organizing? Hopefully they’ll get America’s Top Model by 2007. Where will the strength and tactics come from against corporations who couldn’t be stronger?
Things will begin with an offer to roll back our P,H & W, as they always do. (so when writers are divided, it can be a giveback concession to factionalize many) Economic climate and all that will be cited. Will the WGA’s response be simply for a strike authorization? And we’ll figure out the details later? Does the membership fully appreciate the timeline required of a contentious strike in order to touch these parent corporation’s bottom line in even a small way? The first 3 months, the studios make MORE money. They cut overhead deals, save cash, roll out new and old product sitting on the shelves. Months 3-9, they live off reality shows, animation and of course new and creative ways to package DVDs and downloads. Hell, most of the striking writers will be spending their days buying and watching DVDs after a day’s picket. Meanwhile a public doesn’t miss drama and comedy when they have American Idol 24/7. (meaning: We come back to far fewer jobs)
And IF the writers go out on strike, the studios will absolutely want to wet a finger to the wind and see “how united are they?” That’s not something they can get a read on until the 4-6 month point, IMO.
So when you writers vote to authorize a strike, be prepared that it likely means at least 6 months, and I think double that, not 6 weeks, to show we mean business. Viacom, GE, these are coporations that mean ‘business’. Once we’re out, there’s no reason to bring us back until the last possible minute. And who knows, just maybe they can do some union-busting right here in the US without having to move the plants overseas (yes they are already soliciting writers to write for owned subsidiaries in Europe, writing under non-WGA deals). It’s the American way.
I’m pretty militant and I’m for a universal new media definition. But I also think principled negotiation is the only way (eg. based on copyright principles as codified in our contract), and I also think the universiality and inclusiveness of a definition means more than the raw numbers (this time around). I don’t get the feeling current leadership will take this course. It broke my hear that Ted didn’t get elected. One of the smartest guys in the room.
I basically agree. The only mitigating factor is whether or not there’s a real probability of a deal without going to war. As someone smarter than I has said, “A strike is a failure.” It’s a failure of the negotiating process. Negotiations should always be given a chance. If they fail, then yes, I support labor actions.
This may be a good test to learn something about the territory we now find ourselves in; what it’ll take to get what we want, while also serving to put others on notice that we’re willing to go there to get it.
However, the entire deal need not go down like this for this specific action to be effective. If we win this strike, that’s leverage we just gained at the bargaining table.
Hi Craig,
I’m with you on this with one question: How long does vote to be represented by the WGA take to be reviewed/approved? If a show doesn’t last long, will the vote process take longer than the writers’ time in the shop?
John
John:
The vote that I’m familiar with lasted about the length of a season. If the show doesn’t last long, the whole thing is sort of moot, as either a lengthy vote or a strike would eat into the short life of the show anyway.
Most labor actions happen against companies that are successful. Certainly the choice to strike against America’s Next Top Model is no exception; the show does well in the ratings and is one of the cornerstones of the new CW network’s fall schedule.
Dear Craig,
We disagree a lot on Guild business. In fact, there is little above I don’t disagree with. But I am very sad to see you and Ted not continuing on. Not just for the balance on the Board that is essential for constructive debate, but because the meetings will be that much less fun.
—Robert King
Robert:
The feeling is mutual, including the part about disagreements. I’ll miss you most of all, scarecrow. I had dinner last night with Scott Frank, and we were talking about the Board, and he and I said some nice things about you that you probably don’t even deserve to know about, because I don’t want you to get a swollen head.
For the rest of you, I’ll say that Robert King, while wrong about everything*, has a tremendous amount of integrity. He’s one of the good guys. I’m counting on the fact that he will continue to be a voice for accountability and principle on behalf of all of us who pay dues.
*except the WGAE
Craig,
It sounds like we need you on the board NOW more than ever. And to back out and leave these leaders with any less of a vocal Devil’s Advocate would be damaging to the union as a whole.
What media press the WGA has launched to get what they want, as far as I saw, was answered very loudly in the public eye (trades), only making us look weak and greedy. Quite ineffective. So, you might be the smartest, most acurately thinking guy in that room, and you wanna quit.
To not lend your voice to that bored, no matter how often you get bulldozed or beat down - it’s important that voice is present. And to walk away because you got better things to do than argue for writers rights in an uphill battle - that’s pretty sad for such an advocate of these rights. It makes this rant nothing but lot of talk.
As a board member, your job specifically does include a need to argue with your fellow writers (and losing even if you’re right) so you can hold them accountable and make them see. If you don’t do it, all this railing on the internet is pointless. You are giving up your seat AT THE TABLE in order to wail at them from the safe little corner on your home computer. Because it’s not easy and they don’t want to see. Tough! Get up, brush yourself off, and get back in the fight.
Dude, that’s why we want you there. Devil’s Advocates need to be on the board - what would Democrats be without Republicans? Besides happy. Would they have to try half as hard to win an election, or make their promises come true if nobody was right there over their shoulder ready to make them responsible for their failures? You and Ted should be going nowhere. They need you on that board. WE need you on that board. Be a man.
If I had your aptitude for this stuff, I’d run. But I simply don’t.
Sorry, but just like you want to force honest WGA debate here, I figured you would prefer the same candor.
You’re a good man, Solo. We hate to lose you.
Michael Proud WGAw Writer
Michael:
Yeah, I’ve gotten this response quite a bit. It’s a version of “We love you! You’re a dick!” And I understand.
Understand that I didn’t resign from the Board. I’m simply not running for reelection. Nonetheless, my rants here (and the rants to come) are hardly all talk. I really did give this quite a bit of thought. There is a level of frankness that I can engage in as a rank-and-file member that I simply cannot engage in as a Board member.
In other words, this bully pulpit is probably a better way for me to communicate my message to the membership than the Board. The Board votes, the Board acts. Individual Board members are forbidden by Board rules from speaking to the press, for instance. In a month, I won’t be.
That aside, there’s also been a serious shift in the procedures of governance in the WGAw that I don’t like, and that shift has, in my mind, taken a lot of decision-making authority from the Board. You just have to trust me, Michael, when I say that I’m not walking away from one bit of substantive influence over the process. Not one bit.
I can offer more accountability from this end. I honestly believe that. I assure you that the more cowardly option for me would be to sit in that room for another year and protest privately.
This is far more risky, and I’m going to get far more crap for this.
It strikes fear into the hearts of many of us to think there may be less of a coherent plan to form a solid position of strength through multiple union collaboration, then to be pulling swords and attack tanks. The corporate bottom line is brutal, and we will be asked to serve it. If it’s brutal in good economic times, how will it be next year?
A lone voice of reason often sounds like lunacy when peers accept the collective wisdom of individual stupidity. Don’t know if that’s the case here. Just saying that in politics, speech is free-er when you don’t hold office.
As a sitting Board member, I’ve been fairly reluctant to talk about these things while still serving
I have to say, as a WGA member for 13 years now, I’ve never understand this mindset. And it’s certainly not unique to you, Craig. It happens to nearly every board member on every board. There’s a weird omerta going on. It’s a Hollywood thing, I know, to go at each other in the closed board room, and then it’s all smiles outside the door.
I think that is so unfortunate. The end result is that the general membership is largely clueless about differing POVs on major issues until it hits the fan. The over-confidentiality of the board contributes to this, the sunshine-out-your-ass Guild publications contribute to this. But the happy silent faces in the boardroom contribute, too. It’s good we’re seeing the Board minutes again, but they’re so sanitized, too, that the membership doesn’t know the two sides to many issues.
I remember a time when major issues where debated in Guild pubs. I have to wonder if we’ll ever see that sort of openness again. I guess it’s just the general Cheneyization of the world that is now affecting our Guild, too.
There are times when the Board needs to stand together in the face of differences. During negotiations, for example. But there’s still far too much omerta going on. That’s why I could never run for the Board. I couldn’t handle that overwhelming cloud of omerta.
I don’t have the votes to stop them, nor am I convinced that having the votes would matter.
There is great value in dissent, however. And once you’re outside that boardroom, Craig, you’re on the outside. You become the Bob Dole of the Guild. Because the Board is still such a closed circle, anyone outside that circle has so little access to current information in order to forumulate an opposing point of view. I’ve seen it happen before.
Nonetheless, Craig, we all appreciate your hard work on the Board. Always remember: no good deed goes unpunished.
Hi, Craig.
Just found your site. I’m a post-current member of the WGA who shifted into reality writing after a downturn in television movie production. I worked on two other shows for the company that produces “America’s Next Top Model” and though I wish they’d had the time to go the negotiation route, I’m in full support of the strike. In fact, I’ve been down several times to walk the picket line.
The problem I’m seeing is that the every day rank and file member of the Guild is not being kept informed as to what is going on with the strike and with the utter lack of progress in terms of negotiations. I’m also most disappointed that there are so few people out there actually walking the line and supporting the twelve strikers every day.
Your fellow board members have put in appearances, which I know are much appreciated, but I continue to be shocked that the old lefty Guild members I know are too busy with their own stuff to lend their physical presence and support in anything but single-digit numbers.
I was there on Wednesday along with one other Guild member and a couple of members of the WGA staff. These strikers have put their careers on the line to join the Guild and I think they deserve more support. If you can’t march, send money or write a letter to the strikers and/or to the production company and network.
I will give kudos to the Guild support staff who are helping organize the strike and keeping the strikers well-hydrated. Thanks for letting me vent. WRITERS UNITED, WILL NEVER BE DIVIDED! Toni Perling
As a new-ish (1 year) member of the guild, I find the more I read, the more I don’t know what the fuck is going on. I’m confused by this discussion.
I COMPLETELY agree with bringing reality writers in, believing that old motto, “We are only as strong as the weakest among us.”
I enjoyed the Unity Rally @ Pan Pacifiic Park and I don’t see the militant tone. Active - yes. Militant - um, no (I didn’t see no Darryl Hannah sitting in no tree for the Top Model writers).
There absolutely was talk about being united with the DGA, SAG, WGAeast - am I missing something there?
Do you think the WGA would balk at a show-by-show deal? It seems like that’s what they’re trying to do by focusing on ANTM. Right?
The other big issue - which personally concerns me - is the new media residuals stuff, which seems to be a priority as well. Everyone seems very aware of the damage giving up the Video/ DVD resid so many years ago and don’t want to repeat it?
I don’t see evidence of the errors you are citing.
It seems like two people saying “We both COMPLETELY DISAGREE about the color of the sky! I think it’s blue; they think it’s light blue!”
Seems like splitting hairs. What am I missing?
Though I agree dissenting debate always produces the best ideas. I just don’t understand the dissent here.