Executive Director: VOTE NO

| | Comments (21)

novot.jpg
Ed. Note: If you’re a member of the WGAw, you should have received a voting packet recently. One of the ballots is for the Board of Directors. The other is to ratify the appointment of David Young as Executive Director of the WGAw. I think you should vote NO on this, and I wrote a “con” statement in the booklet. In case you’ve chucked it in the trash, here’s why I think you should vote NO. Thanks for reading.

As a member of the Executive Search Committee as well as the Board of Directors, I have the difficult task of asking you to cast your “No” vote today and refrain from ratifying David J. Young as our Executive Director.

When faced with a ballot choice of “someone” or “no one,” “someone” usually seems like a better option. But understand that a “No” vote does not mean we will be left without leadership or an Executive Director. A “No” vote today will not impact the upcoming negotiations, which are so important to our economic survival. A “No” vote simply instructs the Board and the Search Committee to provide you with a better option.

I’m not here to bury David Young. David is a good man with an area of expertise. Yet, simply put, the Search Committee found a better candidate. I wish I could tell you everything I know about the other candidate, but the constraints of confidentiality prevent me from doing so. I can tell you this.

  • The other candidate is an executive for one of the country’s most successful and powerful unions. David Young has never held that kind of responsibility prior to joining the WGA.

  • The other candidate has decades of experience negotiating with a very powerful owners’ cartel similar to the networks and studios we negotiate with. David Young does not have experience negotiating collective bargaining agreements, much less under the unique circumstances we face every three years.

  • The other candidate represents a union of highly talented, highly-paid employees whose interests intersect with the media, intellectual property law and profit sharing. David Young’s experience is with seamstresses, carpenters and plumbers whose employment issues are not similar to ours.

  • The other candidate’s union was faced with a threat from a new, non-union work force (like we are with reality TV). The other candidate organized those non-union workers before they began day one on the job. David Young has not had that kind of success, and his last major organizing effort on behalf of seamstresses for Guess Jeans was a complete failure.

  • The other candidate has solid labor roots that go back 30 years, with connections to the AFL-CIO. David Young does not.


For the last year, I’ve watched David Young carefully, and I’ve been modestly impressed. He’s risen to the challenge of being the interim Executive Director but not, in my mind, to being our permanent leader.

Indeed, there have been significant failures.

Despite the statement of one candidate in the last election that all reality writers would be under our jurisdiction by the start of 2006, we haven’t brought one single reality writer into our union. Under David’s leadership, hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on expensive miscues, such as employees that David has hired and then quickly fired, ineffective corporate campaigns like Subservient Donald and the Product Invasion website, and various guerilla tactics that have done little more than garner fleeting curiosity from the press. Our expenses are way up, and our income is down.

In short, David’s heart is in the right place, but his strategies for our union have been scattershot and ever-changing. We simply can’t afford that. The other candidate brings a track record of focus, achievement and vision, and the Search Committee’s impression of this candidate was unanimously positive.

I believe it is this other candidate, not David Young, who can strike fear into the hearts of the networks and studios. I believe it is this other candidate, not David Young, who can last beyond any one President or any one negotiation. I believe it is this other candidate, not David Young, who can bring our union into the 21st century.

I know that David is a popular choice among our current Guild politicians. They’ve worked with him, and frankly, they gave him this job. He’s “their guy.” But you’re not electing their guy today.

You’re electing our guy.

Vote “No.” David can still lead our Organizing Department, but we have superior choices for the top job, and there’s never been a more important time to be choosy.

We can do better than our last Executive Director, John McLean, and we can do better than David Young…a man that John McLean found and hired.

Vote “No” and give us the chance to bring you a candidate more worthy of your support.

21 Comments

Alan E. E. Smith said:

Trust us. We have secret information. We can’t tell you why, but you should do what we tell you.

Your fearless leader. Junior.

Karen Baird-Eaton said:

Nice post, Craig. …and to Smithee, I think your rejoinder is a bit unjust as Craig DID tell people as much as he could (which was quite a substantial chunk of information) and the tone of his post was educational, not dictatorial, imho.

Ryan Paige said:

I haven’t gotten my packet/ballot yet. I guess they saw how I voted last time and decided to cast me asunder. :-)

Craig Mazin said:

Ryan:

If you don’t get it by Tuesday, let me know. I’ll make sure they send you one.

Craig, thanks for your time and energy on the board, and on the search committee. I’m still pissed at you for walking away, but I get it.

Craig Mazin said:

I’ll add you to the long list of people I have disappointed in my life. :)

Ryan Paige said:

My election packet came in today’s mail after all. So that’s a good.

Craig. You’ve found a way to kill out of control comments. Simply post something informative and useful that reminds people that they must be accountable for the organization they belong to and the place clears faster than, than one of those fast clearing things.

Yeah, that fast.

What?!

You only said that because you believe in disempowering Writers! And I know you think that Directors are Sky Gods…or something.

Uncle Tom!

Anonymous said:

Kevin,

I could be missing the sarcasm above, but that last comment deems itself as waaaaay inappropriate, and actually quite shocking!

*I’d like to sign off personally, but I think I’ll try anonymous today - :)

Kwame said:

He didn’t just say, “Uncle Tom!” did he,

He didn’t just write “Uncle Tom!” did he,

This one goes too far brother.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, at what cost to get a laugh?

K

Craig Mazin said:

He’s being sarcastic…

Leif Smart said:

Sarcasm doesn’t work as well on the internet 8(

Mr Abrasive said:

sarcasm doesn’t work well on the internet … for people who are fucking stupid.

or for newbies. but for us long time regulars, i’m sure … i’d HOPE! kevin made total sense.

there ya go, tc - out of control comments can come on even the most informative and useful (if you’re not already in the wga) posts, if only the readership try! ;)

Tim Woods (aka Mr Abrasive) said:

only added to because i didn’t realise before posting that my flatmates comp didn’t have my correct details.

not an anon. tim woods. mr abrasive. we’ve been over this …

(i’ll keep a sharper eye next time)

Tim Woods (aka Mr Abrasive) said:

ok, i’m going to be serious for a moment - could i suggest an article on reading tone?

as a group of people who are supposed to spend at least part of their time reading produced and unproduced scripts, it might be quite useful. i’ve been thinking about this after noticing that some people really, really can’t read tone at all. i wonder how that affects their ability to write tone.

i am literally shocked by how often people are compeletly incapable of picking up on even the most obvious tone from people who they’ve read a lot of comments from.

what can you say about reading and writing tone, though? is it innate or is it as learnable as any other screenwriting skill? how the hell do toneblind people read comedy scripts? how do they write them? are these people who direct from the page a lot?

even as i’m suggesting an article on tone, i’m thinking it might be a hard one to write.

any thoughts, anyone?

Tim Woods (aka Mr Abrasive) said:

eww. now that i’ve been serious, i feel dirty. i’m gonna go rip the piss out of sommat.

Leif Smart said:

I’d like to point out that most people on the internet are stupid.

All I know is that the internet is a series of tubes.

david said:

actually, the internet is a bunch of electrons and photons that don’t know tone from a chicken sandwich

Actually, on a serious note Tim has a point.

If you are a screenwriter and you can’t spot tone when it’s obvious or even glaring, you’re probably gonna have some serious problems.

But this has nothing to do with this particular topic so I won’t poison this thread with my big bag of bullshit.

CRAIG:

Back on topic however, I’d love to know when you can talk more about some more WGA issues. Give us a date! I can’t wait! So don’t be late…mate.

Jesus, I’m an idiot.

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by published on September 3, 2006 12:40 AM.

Q: Do I Need To Show "Range" In Order To Get An Agent? was the previous entry in this blog.

Howard Michael Gould on "Page Fright" is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.01