The Reality Organizing Campaign Is, Well, Dead
WGAw
Executive Director
David YoungAfter writing a bit about my migraines, it’s time I started doling some out to other people. I think I’ll start with Patric Verrone and David Young, who, as the leaders of my union, are chiefly responsible for conceiving, coordinating, and then ultimately killing the effort to organize reality television writers into the WGAw. No, you won’t see any official announcement from the guild that the effort to organize reality is dead. No funeral, no flowers.
But don’t mistake the Guild’s silence for a pulse.
This thing is dead. It’s over. It’s an ex-organizing campaign.
If you’re thinking, “Well, hey, nothing ventured, nothing gained,” I’m afraid to say that quite a bit was ventured…to the tune of seven figures of dues money…and not only was nothing gained, but we actually lost some yardage.
Yes, by my last count, our very expensive reality organizing campaign has managed to bring a net total of negative 12 writers into the WGAw.
What went wrong?
Well, just about everything.
Let’s roll back to the genesis of it all. Patric Verrone, the current President of the WGAw, has been banging the drum of organizing for a very long time, and for good reason. Organizing, which is the catch-all term for bringing new groups of employees into a union, is certainly a major part of union work. The fact that the WGAw lost an organizing battle with IATSE over animation writers, for instance, means that no one ever gets paid residuals on movies like Happy Feet or Shrek or Ice Age or…any of them.
This is bad.
As such, I believe in organizing.
However, where Patric and I differ is that I believe in organizing primarily as a moral imperative to improve the lives of non-unionized employees, while he believes in organizing primarily as a strategy to increase the bargaining power of already unionized writers.
See, I wanted reality writers to get covered by a WGA contract because it’s good for them. They would get minimums, pension and health, and decent working conditions.
Patric wanted reality writers in the WGA because he believed that would allow the rest of us to strike effectively and achieve the real goal, which is to improve our residuals formula. See, we all know that the companies use non-union reality as a wedge against our strike threat. If we strike, they can still keep running very popular reality shows, making our strike less harmful to them.
And Patric didn’t like this.
So he and David Young devised a strategy.
The Verrone-Young strategy goes a little something like this.
- In order to get a better residuals formula, you need to win a strike.
- In order win a strike, you need to have reality workers in your union, striking with you.
- In order to get reality workers in the union to create that effective strike threat, you need to get them all, not just some workers or some shows or some networks or some production companies.
- In order to get them all, you need to get the companies to agree to something they have never ever ever agreed to in Hollywood before, which is a union standards clause. This means that not only would the big companies agree to go union, but they would agree to only work with companies that also agreed to go union.
- In order to get the never-before-gotten union standards agreement, we would have to pressure the companies through a corporate campaign, which is an orchestrated effort to attack the companies in multiple small ways…a “death of a thousand paper cuts”…finally bringing them to their knees.
- Our corporate campaign included three phases. The first involved filing lawsuits alleging that the companies weren’t paying reality writers overtime.
- The second phase attacked the companies over the practice of product integration (the inclusion of advertising within plotlines, etc.), with the expectation that advertisers would freak out and pressure the networks to accede to our demands.
- The third phase was to attempt to create an industry-wide walkout by striking one show and hoping for the “match in the tinderbox” effect. That show was America’s Next Top Model.
You might think, like I did, that this was the most rickety, convoluted, pie-in-the-sky Rube Goldberg strategy you’ve ever encountered.
Or you might think it sounds great.
Either way, here’s what happened.
The overtime lawsuits were batted away like gnats. The companies will likely settle them quietly if they haven’t already. Meanwhile, I’ve been hearing anecdotally that reality writers are being paid overtime…but they’re being paid less per hour…so their overall pay hasn’t changed.
In short, the companies were not brought to their knees.
The effort against product integration included an incredibly clumsy, ham-fisted website called Subservient Donald, a ripoff of Burger King’s wildly successful viral marketing campaign “Subservient Chicken.” The Donald is a Donald Trump impersonator who responds to user questions by slamming various products that are advertised through product integration.
David Young believed that this would “go viral,” which is a phrase that should be outlawed. If you’re trying to “go viral,” you’re not going viral. The internet is rather good at ignoring forced messages.
Unsurprisingly, Subservient Donald was dead on arrival. All other efforts to attack product integration, including guerrilla street theater, picketing in front of advertising conferences and even a lobbying trip to Europe to attempt to influence legislators there against the practice…got nothing.
Zippo. Well, the companies were annoyed by the papercuts, but they weren’t dying or falling to their knees or even flinching.
And so, with hundreds of thousands of dollars spent and nothing to show for it, the WGAw took the writers of America’s Next Top Model out on strike.
There were twelve of them.
The theory, apparently, was that once the rest of the reality writers in town saw both the bravery of these twelve writers as well as the incredible show of support from the rest of the union, they would rush out on to their own picket lines in a chain reaction of labor solidarity. With a thousand reality writers on the street, Patric and David would finally bring the companies to their knees.
Ah.
Well.
As most of you know, it didn’t work like that. Instead, simple, obvious and oh-so-predictable human nature trumped Patric and David’s plan. Instead of rushing out to their own picket lines, the rest of the reality writers thought, “Hmmm, let’s see if these people make some progress or get squashed like bugs before we risk our jobs.”
The ANTM writers walked the line for many weeks. They were paid, in fact, by the WGAw. The picket line was catered (this is Hollywood, after all). WGAw members worked phone banks to get other members to walk the line with them in support (I made some of these calls myself).
Now, here’s what I said upon hearing of this strike, and I said it in the Board room.
“The CW would rather kill ANTM than give it to us now, and they would probably be compensated for it by the other companies.”
Why? Because the precedent of rewarding the WGAw for this kind of labor action would be unthinkable for them.
In the end, the ANTM writers were told that not only were they not getting WGAw deals, but all writing jobs on the show were being eliminated.
That’s right. ANTM said, “Hey, you know what, we can do this show with our editors. We don’t even need you, much less feel like giving you a union deal.”
And that’s how our millions in dues money got us the sum total of -12 writers organized into the WGAw.
Still, knowing full well that the ANTM writers were in the process of petitioning to try and get their jobs back anyway, the WGAw decided to light yet another bonfire of cash in a desperate attempt to save face.
They held a “unity” rally.
The entire staff suddenly focused on this event, as if it were ever going to make a damned bit of difference to the ANTM writers (one of whom told me that “if they ask me to speak at the rally, I’m going to tell everyone there not to listen to these people.”).
Hell, they even got Marc Cherry to record a phone message exhorting us all to show up, and then ran it on an autodialer out to all current WGAw members.
Hundreds of people showed up (estimates ran from 700 to 1,000 people), some of whom were non-members, but a good chunk of whom were members.
Patric and David spoke. They spoke about the need to fight. The need to bring the companies to their knees.
Everyone wore a red t-shirt. Then they marched past CBS as if to say, “Hey, CBS, don’t mess with us!”
Then they went home.
The ANTM writers are still looking for work. Some of us have been trying to help find them replacement jobs. The WGAw certainly isn’t.
Then again, I’m starting to wonder if the current leadership ever really gave a damn about these people. And now that this entire thing is dead and they’ve burned through the treasury and have nothing to show for it, all I can say is that I’m angry.
Writers have to earn nearly 67 million dollars to net the Guild a million dollars in dues.
I think they’ve probably spent more than a million on the reality organizing effort, which involved a major staff buildup, web expenditures, trips to Europe, trips to New York, research, production of a large number of useless presentations, catering, t-shirts, and flat-out stipends for strikers.
But let’s just say a million.
That gives me 67 million reasons to be angry.
That’s not all, though.
I have a friend. Good friend. I’ve known him for about six years now. I know his wife. I’ve known his kids since birth. He lives a few miles away from my house. I see him almost every week.
He’s been working in reality all that time.
He has no minimums, he has no pension and health, he gets no residuals, and he works ridiculous hours.
I came to Patric Verrone two years ago and said, “I believe we can organize his show if we take a vote of the staff, go through the NLRB process, keep it quiet, keep it out of the press, and in one year all of those writers will be in our union and have better lives.”
And he said, “So?”
See, that didn’t fit in Patric’s plan of everyone, so he rejected it.
My friend is still working non-union.
One last thought for you.
I had a conversation with a man who is currently on the Board and on the Organizing Committee as well. I put a hypothetical to him that clearly shows where the minds of our leadership are right now.
I said, “If the companies came to you tomorrow and said they’d give all reality writers a great collective bargaining agreement under the auspices of the WGAw, and it would guarantee them minimums and pension and health and great working conditions and even residuals, but the one condition was that it had to be separate from our agreement, so if we struck, they would have to keep working…would you take that deal?”
And he said, “No.”
That’s when I knew that my union, like Harold Crick, was living in a tragedy.
Craig, fantastic post.
The sad thing is that Verrone and co paid a proper slate organizer and their targeted money won them the election.
The vote totals for the Verrone slate were very similiar; that is organizing, the type he has not been able to achieve with reality writers.
The sad truth is that if you want these people out, and their strategy is a loser strategy, you, and I mean you plural, will have to do more than point out their failures on blog sites which the vast majority of WGAw membership don’t read.
The last election campaign bore that out. WA members were hugely in favour of Ted and thought his election a foregone conclusion.
If you want your Guild back and the threat of a strike removed, you will have to fight fire with fire. That means an organiser of your own, direct mail shots or however the Verrone slate did it.
Otherwise, you can expect more of the same. At least more until they finally lose it and do call a strike. Which will fail. At that point the membership will throw them out, but a lot of careers will have been damaged by then.
I think the other reason the WGAw plan went dead is because perhaps they shared the same viewpoint of Reality Writers as other unionized Writers. Which is:
Reality Writers aren’t really Writers at all.
I’ve had this argument ad nauseum with other writers and I got the distinct impression that this viewpoint was shared by the majority and not the minority.
Just to make it clear. I’m in the minority.
What is to stop this from happening now, with that place and elsewhere? Why can’t this still be won by doing this very thing?
It may be the simple fact that ANTM is still on the air without any writers — any attempt to organize another reality show could meet the same fate, even if it is low-key.
I have to agree with CW’s actions in this one. Parents simply cannot reward children for throwing a tantrum. And all of this talk of unions, legislation, and litigation makes me wonder why writers don’t go the capitalist route, which would be to form a production company of sorts that employs the writers directly and gives them health benefits. Then when a studio wants a writer, the producers simply retain the production company (similar to a consulting firm’s business model) with a standard contract that essentially requires residuals, etc. Thus, instead of talent agents and the sort, aspiring writers seek to be employed (rather than represented) by this production company.
Paul:
There’s too much bad blood now. Even if the WGAw wanted to go show by show in a reasonable way, without the threat of labor stoppages, lawsuits or NRLB complaints, I don’t think we’d get very far.
Part of the problem is that IATSE (the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees), which is the union with jurisdiction over editors, is now starting to swoop in and organize reality shows. They believe they have jurisdiction over all reality employees, so no matter what the WGAw does, they’ll have to deal with legal challenges before they can even begin.
What a boondoggle.
The sad truth is that if you want these people out, and their strategy is a loser strategy, you, and I mean you plural, will have to do more than point out their failures on blog sites which the vast majority of WGAw membership don’t read.
What effect do you think this debacle will have on the ‘07 contract negotiations?
Seduce:
I’m not sure that this truth (which is definitely a truth) is sad. Yes, I think we’ll have to do more. No, this blog isn’t about “getting them out.” It’s about editorializing, and nothing more.
Getting them out is a task for later.
Chesher:
Well, I think it certainly makes us look weak and ineffective, and that’s never good when heading into a negotiation.
Loved your post, Craig. Thank you for breaking down the issues at the heart of the losing proposition that was David Young and Patric Verrone’s attempt at organizing reality writers.
I am a reality show runner. I attended the last, most recent reality show runner’s organizing meeting at the WGA. It was on guild election day and David Young stopped by, looking very tired, but amped.
A big time TV drama show runner was there, too and spoke honestly about how it would benefit the guild and existing TV writers like him if they could organize us so the networks couldn’t use us against them come contract negotiation time. I liked his honesty. It was the last honest thing said in that room that night.
As the host of the evening (an elderly gentleman, don’t remember his name) rambled on about the beauty of fighting together for our rights, yada, yada… basic, logical questions formed in my head. I asked them.
Hem… haw… no answer. Not from David Young. Not from rambling but well-intentioned older gentleman host. Not from Patric Verrone who was sitting off to the side.
Wow. Everyone around the big conference table looked at me like I had just said the ‘N’ word. Like I was some imperialistic asshole wanting rights only for the super elite. And those faces looking at me were from Shopping Frenzy on TLC, History of Rodents on Animal Channel, Bride Smackdown on Lifetime… I mean, come on! David Young looked like he had just smelled a hot fart. He answered in a clipped way that that was not what they were interested in pusuing.
Oh sure, that’s a great idea, of course. We’ll put together a sheet. But the white paper never came. Why? Because there are no talking points. At least not up the ladder. There is begging. There is “be nicer to humanity and please give us portable pension and health”, but again, I believe that is called begging. We, the piddly reality show runners, have no power. We maybe could ask for P&H on our own behalfs but WGA wasn’t into that… and apparently wasn’t really into organizing us or they would have had a freakin’ sheet ready for us, given us some sort of tools… instead of dry roast beef and rhetoric.
And the kickers were:
I talked to the drama show runner afterwards because I am a huge fan and he had NO IDEA how our business worked. That the prodcos sell the shows. In his world, HE is the king. Our business model was complete news to him and he admitted he could see the difficulty in organizing us because we do not hold the power, as he does in his world.
As I walked out of the meeting, I felt a lot of anger. I walked in ready to be used as a pawn for the WGA TV writers to use against the networks and I would receive somehting in exchange. But I walked out feeling like the WGA organizers were inept and do not really understand my business nor care to tackle the complexity of it. Their “rah, rah unity” bullshit was supposed to sway me to risk my career without actual concrete tools and support based on a deep understanding of the reality TV process? And they were firm about organizing all or nothing? Hmm… seems they were destined for nothing. And I really, REALLY wanted something.
Lastly, as I was headed to the parking garage having a post mortum about the meeting with my friend who is also a reality show runner, she put the capper on it for me when she said, “I know just how you feel. I felt the same frustration when we had this meeting 18 months ago. The same meeting. The same people. The same questions. The same non-answers. Even the same roast beef.”
Damn.
Seduce was quoting me. Why, I am not sure.
Five Good Hours:
Yeah. I mean…yeah.
Yup.
Pretty depressing, huh?
This may make WGA board members’, etc., hair stand on end, and this may be too big of a newbie question for a comments section, but reading up on the union, the way it works, the recent failed strikes and the possbily upcoming-even-though-it-seems-like-no-one-wants-it-and-it-won’t-do-any-good strike continually makes me wonder on a grand scale why we have or need a union at all. Or at least this one.
I’m a non-union writer trying to break in and come from a family of non-union people, so there’s my biased disclaimer. But it seems to me the guild approaches writers very much as labor employees—that is, it’s modeled on the traditional union model of the 1930s in which exploited workers wanted a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. A model which definitely holds true for writers [I]except[/I] for that key sticking point of writers being creative types who don’t necessarily simply want to put in a fair day’s work and go home and nap. For me, (and I may be the minority since I’m all young and idealistic and shit) I care less about the strict “union benefits” of health care and pension and the nickel-and-dime of this or that polish then I do about being kept in the creative process and allowing the vision of the script to come together with all involved. Yes, of course I want to be paid what I’m worth, not just for the script but the DVD residuals, etc. But I pay for my own health care and retirement plan out of my own pocket now; I’m in another guild that offers it, but the cost/benefit doesn’t work for me.
The point of all this is that from what I read and observe, most writers want to work, want to contribute creatively, and want to be fairly compensated. These are their priorities. The union’s priorities seem to be making sure everyone is treated 100% equally, even if that equality means everyone is treated equally crappily. But Hollywood isn’t a steel mill—every production has different budgets and different needs. Honestly, I don’t see how this union, with the labor force model it follows, can ever effectively negotiate for the writers. They’re barking up two different trees and in the meantime, producers are starting to even wonder if they need pets. Enlighten me?
Our union does a lot of good. For instance, it administers credits (although somewhat oddly), and it collectively bargains for and distributes residuals.
In the end, though, the most important value to our union is simply this: being in a union prevents undercutting.
Because this is an industry with very few jobs and an enormous amount of people who want them, there will always be a downward pressure on wages.
Call it the “casting couch” syndrome. People are desperate to work in Hollywood. Many would work for free if that were an option, if only to chase the dream of some imagined riches.
If we didn’t have a union that set a basic minimum in compensation, the downward pressure on salaries would not only affect rookies, but veterans and all-stars as well.
So I do think the union is necessary, if only for that.
However, the union is terrible at “changing the industry.” Terrible. In fact, they never do. They can’t. It’s a small bureaucracy with an extremely limited set of tools, and the industry is the opposite.
What our union ought to be doing to improve the lives of its members is enforcing the agreements we already have.
See, while Patric and David are running around trying to impress hundreds or thousands of employees into the union, the people already in the union who pay dues aren’t being protected as well as they could be. Our Legal Department is notorious for its passivity, and the companies are notorious for breaking our agreements routinely.
In conclusion, we need a union, and we need it to work better for our members, and the guys running it now aren’t helping.
They’re hurting.
Craig, I’ve been reading and enjoying your blog for quite awhile, and I’ve especially admired your straight talk and level headedness regarding entertainment union issues. I’m the president of The Animation Guild, IATSE local 839 (TAG), so I come at these issues from a slightly different perspective, but we’re in almost complete agreement in how wrong-headed the current WGA leadership is.
I do have to correct some of your comments about animation writers. Local 839 began representing storymen (as they were then known) and animation writers well over 50 years ago, and long before anyone at the WGA took any notice of animation. There wasn’t really a battle over jurisdiction between the WGA and the local 839 (then known as the Motion Picture Screen Cartoonists) — local 839 covered EVERYONE in animation, except editors and camera operators, because no one else gave a damn.
When I first became president, we actually had meetings with WGA organizers about cooperative organizing. There has always been a fair amount of animation work, including writing, being done nonunion, and our attitude was that people should be protected by a collective bargaining agreement. If we weren’t being successful organizing a given company, we’d be happy to see the WGA succeed with that show’s writers. There were lots of people writing and making cartoons without decent health or pension benefits or residuals of any kind, and to us that was more important than differences between TAG and the WGA.
In the last couple of years, those overtures towards cooperation went sour, beginning when the WGA tried to raid TAG’s jurisdiction at DreamWorks (on “Father of the Pride”). And then things became stridently militant with the current WGA administration, when a kind of unilateral war was declared.
It never made sense to me for one entertainment union to pick fights with other entertainment unions, especially when the producers hold almost all the power, but that seems to be a pattern at the WGA (I’m thinking here also of the silly and counterproductive battles with the DGA).
Anyway, back to the issue of animation writers, and another clarification: writers under the TAG 839 contract DO get residuals, though not directly as under the SAG, WGA, and DGA deals. Our residuals go into a pool to support the health and individual pension plans. That formula was decided decades ago, for better or worse. As a result, the IATSE west coast locals have the best health and pension plans in the biz. Last year these locals received over $350 million in residuals.
Also, until recently, it wasn’t uncommon for animation writers under the 839 agreement to negotiate residuals that came into their very own pockets. This is unheard of today, for a very simple reason: the WGA has been too successful in emphasizing that ONLY WGA writers get residuals. It wasn’t true, but WGA leaders kept saying it, and now the animation producers believe it.
A few years ago an animation writer with such a deal stopped getting his residual checks. He called the TAG office, and they investigated. Turned out a studio exec, who was new to the job, had been reading some WGA press releases, and said, “Hey, this guy isn’t in the WGA, so we shouldn’t be paying him residuals.” Of course a quick grievance threat settled that matter, but the die was cast. The studios developed a hard line regarding allowing individual residuals for animation writers.
Oh, and that’s not just for writers under our contract. Think a WGA contract on an animated show always means residuals? Not from what I hear. You might ask your president about that.
You also mentioned that writers for “Happy Feet” and the “Ice Age” films don’t get residuals. You could also have mentioned all the Pixar films, among others. None of those films have been made under ANY collective bargaining agreement. There has been absolutely nothing keeping the WGA from organizing those writers. Yet it hasn’t happened. I think the WGA’s constant emphasis on turf battles with the IATSE and TAG 839 obscures the fact that the WGA, despite high-profile posturing about representing animation writers, has done an incredibly ineffective job of organizing in this area. The only exception is a small handful of FOX primetime shows.
Anyway, that’s all a foot note to your main premise, which is that the WGA is being lead to the edge of a cliff. And, unfortunately, just about every other worker in the entertainment industry might get pulled over that cliff, whether they like it or not.
“Seduce was quoting me. Why, I am not sure.”-Louise B
I think it may be a new form of spam. Bots blending in with actual posters. The link (which we probably shouldn’t follow if we want to discourage them) makes me picture Tom Cruise in Magnolia.
Kevin:
As a member of Local 839, I say welcome…and thanks for your very informative comment.
The story I heard about animation writers is a bit different than the one you’re telling. I was told that animation writers actually approached the WGAw in the 50’s and were turned down, so IATSE moved in.
That could be apocryphal, but your point holds. There really wasn’t a jurisdictional battle.
I do know that Patric was central to the Father of the Pride incident. I’ll be honest with you…I supported him on that one.
Even though I’m a member of 839, I know that if I write for animation under the WGAw, I get credit protection and I qualify for residuals that are paid directly to me above and beyond my P&H.
If I write under an 839 contract, I do not get credit protection and I will never get residuals as I’ve described above.
I support the right of writers to choose the union that offers them the best contract, although I’m also well aware that I don’t live in a vacuum. There is no doubt that the Father of the Pride contract started a war between IA and the WGA that clearly impacted the WGA’s efforts to organize reality.
As such, I think things could have maybe been handled a bit more carefully.
I agree that beating up on IA isn’t going to make life any better for the people who work under IA contracts.
Yes, it’s true that a WGAw contract in animation doesn’t always equal residuals, but it seem to more often than not, particularly on primetime animation.
And yes, it’s true that the films I mentioned were non-union. I never know which theatrical films are non-union and which are IA. I know that the animated film I was working on was an 839 shop, which is why I’m in your union.
And I agree that the WGAw has done a poor job of organizing animation, but there’s little doubt in my mind that Tommy Short wouldn’t stand by idly if the WGAw tried harder. I don’t think the war between IA and the WGAw is unilateral.
Frankly, I think our union should be concentrating on organizing work areas where our jurisdiction is unquestionable, like basic cable, before we start mucking around in work areas like animation, which seem destined for NLRB hearings.
Thanks again for commenting. Great to have the perspective of another union leader here, and I hope you continue to participate.
Thanks for the long response, Craig.
Actually, I don’t think the “Father of the Pride” thing is why Tom Short and the IA got so exercised on the reality TV thing. It was because (so I’ve been told by people who would know) the WGA was actively trying to represent editors as well as writers on those shows. The “Father of the Pride” thing wasn’t that big a deal, since we all knew from the start there was zero chance of that jurisdiction being lost, and I think was water under the bridge by the time the reality TV stuff hit a fever pitch.
As for Tom Short not standing idly by if the WGAw tried harder in animation … well, it really isn’t up to him. If the WGAw gets the rep cards, and goes to the NLRB, and wins the election, and successfully negotiates, nothing else matters. Tom Short can’t affect that process. As for why I keep hearing about times the WGAw has rep cards but won’t go to the NLRB, well, I don’t get it.
And the comment about the animation war being unilateral was serious. I know the IA is unhappy with the WGAw, and there may be bad blood between our parent union and the WGAw, but at the Animation Guild we really have no ax to grind. We have a fair number of members with dual cards (like you), and our vice president and business agent are both writers.
Anyway, I really have been enjoying the Artful Writer for a good long while, not just for the discussions of union stuff (and I’m sure you and I could do some serious commiserating about the “joys” of union leadership!), but for the thoughtful discussions of the writing process, and of whole crazy entertainment business.
By the way, can you say what animated film you were working on? Were you doing anything with DreamWorks while Ted and Terry were there?
The fact that the WGAw lost an organizing battle with IATSE over animation writers, for instance, means that no one ever gets paid residuals on movies like Happy Feet or Shrek or Ice Age…
Would the writers of ‘Happy Feet’ be covered by the WGA even if the WGA covered Animation?
It was an animated movie written by Australians, in Australia.
The producers were all Australians.
The animation was done by an Australian company, in Australia.
So why would the Writer’s Guild of AMERICA be involved? If the writers were forced to join the WGA, wouldn’t that mean they could never write for Australian film or TV again?
I appreciate the WGA pay scales are great, but if it prevents a writer from ever working again in the country where they live…is it worth it?
Steve:
George Miller is already a member of the WGA. So no, being a member of the WGA doesn’t mean you can’t work for Australian film or TV ever again. You have posed a problem that doesn’t exist.
Kevin:
I must admit, I don’t understand the whole rep cards thing either. If you have them…take a vote….
…unless, as I said, your object wasn’t to eventually get people into your union, but to get them into your union en masse, right now, with a larger goal in mind.
No, I’ve never worked for DreamWorks. I was working on Opus for Dimension Films.
I’m Kevin’s comrade-in-labor, the business representative for The Animation Guild. I started in the cartoon business 30 years ago as a story trainee at Disney. A few points:
As Kevin says, a good number of theatrical animated features aren’t covered by any union contract. Not the product of Blue Sky out of White Plains N.Y. (owned by Fox), not the features of Pixar (now owned by Disney), not a number of independent features (“Barnyard” comes to mind.) All of these films are up for grabs by whatever labor organization can organize them (and by organizing I mean successsfully negotiating a collective bargaining agreement.)
Here’s the reality: Few companies want to sign labor agreements with guilds or unions. Ever. They see themselves as having far more flexibility and control if they don’t. Also (as they perceive it) better cash flow and profit margins.
So, why does any company sign with a union or guild? Simple. The union or guild has leverage to make it happen. For the WGA(w), controlling the sitcom writer prime-time animation producers feel they’ve got to have to compete in that arena provides the leverage. And guess what? The WGA(w) has been relatively successful in prime-time.
But in daytime, that leverage isn’t there. The producers believe they can get along fine without WGA writers, so the WGA has few contracts. And when the WGA does have contracts, the agreements are usually concessionary (i.e., no residuals.)
Years back, I negotiated a term agreement with a negotiating committee composed mostly of writers. They (and I) negotiated with Disney, Fox, DreamWorks and the rest for nine months to achieve residual payments for writers. At the end, the writers got some contract improvements but no residuals. And they went away angry.
I hardly blamed them. They wanted only what other unionized writers have had for fifty years. “It’s only fair!” they kept saying in caucus. The problem is, fair has got nothing to do with it. There is only what unions and/or individuals have the power to achieve.
This, in a nutshell, is the WGA’s problem today. You don’t win an organizing drive by putting out press releases or giving speeches or holding rallies. You win only by using the leverage you actually have. And using it wisely and well.
Kevin,
“Reality Writers aren’t really Writers at all.
I’ve had this argument ad nauseum with other writers and I got the distinct impression that this viewpoint was shared by the majority and not the minority.”
That’s because they’re NOT writers, thank you very much. They’re all sorts of things, and you can even make the case that some of those things are creative, but they’re not writers. So, yeah, it makes it hard for some of us who actually ARE writers to get real worked up about bringing them into our guild. We might as well incorporate the editors of reality shows, since they do the majority of the “writing” on the damn things anyway.
Seriously - if I were an animation writer, I’d be fucking FURIOUS that I was being roped into the same group with reality writers. It’s a travesty that animation writers aren’t part of the guild. They’re no reasonable argument to be made that they don’t do the exact same thing we do.
But reality show writers? Nope. It’s a non-starter. You need to find a different argument. If it’s good for our Guild to include them, if that somehow empowers us, fine. Make that case. But as writers, it behooves us to use words properly, and the people who cobble together reality shows are not writers. To those of us who have worked our asses off for decades to become honest to god, motherfucking Class-A WRITERS, the whole thing is insulting as hell.
Part of the problem is that IATSE (the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees), which is the union with jurisdiction over editors, is now starting to swoop in and organize reality shows. They believe they have jurisdiction over all reality employees, so no matter what the WGAw does, they’ll have to deal with legal challenges before they can even begin.
Eighteen months ago, the WGA(w) and the Editors Guild held planning meetings to jointly organize reality shows. Not much happened. The WGA(w) told the editors they were going their own way. Shortly thereafter, the Guild announced that they were going to organize both editors and writers on reality shows by itself.
IA President Tom Short got mad. The Editors Guild got mad. Several reality producers took a look at the two labor organizations, and made internal calculations regarding which group would be, from their POV, the lesser of two evils.
And here we are, a year or two later, with the Editors Guild holding a number of reality show contracts and the Writers Guild holding (as far as I know) none.
Josh—I hope you’re sitting down, because Young and Verrone ARE attempting to organize reality editors.
I don’t know whether you spend any time reading WriterAction anymore, but if you do, you might find it interesting (actually, more like infuriating) to read some of the “WGA Business” threads from this summer, while the ANTM strike was going on.
The WGAw was unable to have the editors of ANTM walk with the writers because the editors were already members of IATSE. However, David Young and various BOD members have been very up-front about the fact that their ideal strike would be for writers and editors to walk out together, NOT because they honestly believe editors do a job that falls under legitimate WGAw jurisdiction but simply because that would almost certainly shut down production and give us a victory.
When asked whether this might not open up a can of worms down the road—for example, allowing for a future in which feature editors could claim writing credit—these concerns were dismissed with a wave of a hand and “oh, we’ll have a side letter,” or “well, they will be under a separate contract.” Of course, what Craig pointed out in his essay has been very clear to many of us for a while—there is no way in hell this WGAw administration would organize reality under a separate contract because that would fly in the face of their fantasy of being able to shut down all TV production (or, rather, just broadcast TV production, since cable and animation, as others have said, remain unorganized for the most part).
In addition to the ludicrously ill-considered strategy of including editors simply for the short-term potential gain of winning a strike, the definition of “writer” is fuzzy in reality, and the WGAw seems to be exploiting that for its own fuzzy ends rather than making it clear, to the companies or to us members, who, exactly, should be in the WGAw. Although after many discussions I am willing to believe that there is legitimate, WGA-worthy writing going on in at least some reality shows, Young and Verrone seem to be perfectly happy to define “writer” as “someone who will sign a card saying they want to be a WGAw member.”
The ANTM writers were thrown to the wolves by a WGAw leadership that feels bodies are more important than lives. In all honesty, given what I’ve heard about and directly from Young, Verrone and some BOD members who support this haphazard organizing campaign, I believe the absolute best result for the WGAw in the long term would be for them to fail utterly. Because if they succeed, the WGAw will include people who have not and do not desire to do anything like writing, yet they will be entitled to all rights and benefits of WGAw members who do write. And that includes writing credit.
I have yet to hear any arguments for possible benefits from the success of the Young-Verrone strategy, specifically of including reality editors, that outweigh the obvious detriments.
For the record, I do not hate Young or Verrone or anyone on the current BOD. (That seems to be a quick criticism lobbed at those of us who disagree with them.) I don’t doubt that they believe they could make the Guild stronger. However, I haven’t seen any evidence of them achieving that…and I don’t see how that would be a result, even if their plans succeed. It’s possible to have good intentions and be completely misguided, and the sooner more people in the WGAw wake up to THAT reality, the better our chances of getting through 2007 without a long, unwinnable strike.
Steve Hulett:
I agree entirely about the need to emphasize “what you can get” over “what you deserve.” The only time it’s worth fighting for “what you deserve” is if it’s something so critical, it’s not worth having a union without it. Pension and health care come to mind.
Frankly, credit protection is pretty damned close to that, and if I were you guys in IA, that’s what I would be fighting for the hardest on behalf of animation writers (and story artists).
Olson:
By and large, I agree. That is, I think that the definition of “professional writer” is “someone paid to create literary material.”
Some reality employees do this. For instance, on Blind Date, someone wrote the joke bubbles. That’s writing. On Survivor, someone writes the treatments for the various games and puzzles. That’s writing.
Many reality employees called “writers,” however, are paid to take pre-existing footage, and using the transcripts of that footage, rearrange the segments, lines and shots into an audio-visual narrative.
I call that “editing” or “producing” or “directing,” but not writing.
So yes, I think we agree that there’s a major problem in seeking to organize reality employees as writers if they’re not creating orginal literary material.
Steve Hulett again:
Correct. The WGAw attempted to organize reality editors, because they felt they needed a reality strike to get reality into the Guild, and they thought they couldn’t have a successful reality strike without the reality editors.
And correct, the companies took a look at the WGAw and the IA and chose the IA.
Now, a bit of criticism for IA…doesn’t it make you guys a wee bit uncomfortable to know that your deal is more attractive to the companies than ours? Isn’t there a decent possibility that negotiating for a better deal closer to the WGAw’s is possible, even if only by using the WGAw as a stalking horse?
In my opinion, the IA needs to bargain more aggressively on behalf of the minority percentage members it has who are authors. Olson’s right…there are honest-to-goodness authors in the IA like animation writers and story artists too (who do contribute literary material in addition to story art), and it’s not helping us or them if the IA presents a cheaper deal to the companies.
If I were running the guild, I would make better relations with IA a priority. We have to work together to solve the animation jurisdiction issue…and another pet peeve of mine: runaway production.
Denise:
Yup. All true. Actually, the entire argument to rationalize allowing editors into the WGAw isn’t so dangerous because it would open the door for feature film editors…it might…but because it would open the door for feature film directors to claim that they are “writing” on every movie they direct.
After all, once the cameras start rolling, they have all “storytelling” authority on the movie from that point foward until the premiere.
Craig,
“So yes, I think we agree that there’s a major problem in seeking to organize reality employees as writers if they’re not creating orginal literary material.”
In what sense were the ANTM writers doing that? Were the lines the girls said scripted?
Louise:
My understanding is the girls did not speak scripted lines. It’s possible that someone was writing dialogue for Tyra et al, but I’ve never heard that alleged.
Louise—
In the interview linked below, one of the then-striking ANTM writers described her function on the show. I remember being quite shocked when I heard her description. She said their job consisted of looking at some 200 hours of raw footage and then deciding how to edit it into a compelling one-hour episode. Absolutely no writing in the sense of creating a script intended for performance; she flat-out admitted that “it’s totally post-production, we’re not ever feeding lines to the girls.” As much as I believe those 12 people should have received the protections of a union, it’s hard to make a cogent argument for the WGAw being the appropriate union if we assume that the real power of the Writers Guild lies in the fact that its members create literary material.
The interview is available here.
Olson: By and large, I agree.
Holy Crow, Olson and Mazin agree!
Reality writers perform the same function as documentary screenwriters, who are recognized by the WGA. Should we kick them out as well?
Writing a script for reality TV is comparable to writing a nonfiction book — you’re dealing with events that have already happened, but you still have to shape them into a narrative structure, embellish with voiceover/host copy if necessary, take creative liberties for the sake of the story. It’s not editing, and it’s not producing. It isn’t the same process as writing for a “traditional” show, but that doesn’t mean it’s not writing.
That is undoubtedly true for some reality writers, and those writers should absolutely be organized by the WGAw.
The problem for me is that the current WGAw leadership is not bothering to focus on those writers. They are aggressively trying to organize people like the ANTM writers, who did NOT function like documentary writers (if you listened to that interview I linked to, the writer admitted they never fed anyone lines—so they apparently did not write any voiceover narration or the like, which certainly would be WGA-coverable writing). If the WGAw leadership were focusing not on “reality” but on “writers,” it would be harder to take issue with their methods—and their failures.
But documentary writers don’t ONLY write narration — they also write scripts that determine the dramatic structure of the film, before, during, and/or after filming. And that’s exactly what the ANTM writers did, too.
I would argue that if a documentary writer ONLY assembles historical footage, regardless of whether he or she actually writes a transcript that includes description of and dialogue from that footage, he or she should not receive WGA benefits for that work.
If, however, he or she does actual writing, which could include voiceover narration or historical recreations, etc., that should be covered.
The ANTM writers did the former, not the latter, as far as I can tell from their own testimony.
Your argument seems to be that because the ANTM writers do many things that are similar to what documentary writers do, they should be entitled to WGA representation and benefits. However, it is precisely because of the way their job description differs from that of a documentary writer that I believe they were not entitled to either.
This does NOT mean I believe that no reality writers belong in the WGA. Not at all. But as I’ve said and as others have said, repeatedly, the WGAw needs to define “writer” and then organize the people that fit that job description, rather than simply getting behind anyone who signs a card saying they’d like to be in the WGAw and/or who is willing to walk a picket line.
Josh:
When it comes to shows like The Girls Next Door, while they’re great for masturbation, I agree with you, there’s no writing there.
But I’m talking about Host based shows like ANTM and Survivor. While the contestant based portions are totally made in the editing, all of the extensive dialogue spoken by the hosts are scripted by writers. Much like Award Shows.
Well then the question would be:
How much do you have to write to be considered a Writer?
Is it one line? Two lines?
If someone gives Jerry Seinfeld a 4 line joke, can he be considered a Writer? I don’t think anyone has ever disputed that. So why is it so easy to reject someone giving Tyra Banks 2 pages of dialogue?
I think I know why. Content and Association.
I think it’s safe to say that although Reality Television continues to grow in viewership, most people you talk to about Reality Television will condemn it all to hell. It’s trash, it’s garbage, and I’ve heard about 3 different variations of someone taking a shit and making it into art and blah blah blah.
Fine.
To each his own. But just because we dislike the content of something doesn’t mean we should dismiss the obvious facts. If someone writes something for someone else…they’re a writer. Maybe they’re a good writer. Maybe they’re a shitty writer. Who knows? But they’re still writers. Let’s not forget that.
Again, I’m not talking about Reality Shows that rely 100% on editing.
Kevin, if the ANTM writers were in fact writing dialogue for Tyra, then of course they should be in the Guild.
However, if you listen to that interview I linked to in my comment above, the ANTM writer said absolutely NOTHING about writing dialogue for Tyra or anyone else. She said her entire job consisted of shaping preshot footage into episodes. She flat-out said she did not feed lines to the contestants, and if she contributed to lines for Tyra, then she neglected to mention it.
No doubt somebody is writing for Tyra, and those people should be in the WGAw. It’s not clear to me that any of those people were the ones who went on strike.
I’m not passing judgment on the shows reality writers work on. All I care about is whether they’re actually writing, i.e., creating literary material. If they are, they should be in the WGA. If they aren’t, then they shouldn’t be. It really isn’t very complicated, and it’s hard to see why anyone would consider that unreasonable.
Denise:
I have no clue who that woman is you’re talking about regarding ANTM. And if she doesn’t write any lines for Tyra or Jay Alexander she’s not a writer.
I’m talking about the person who does.
Kevin, the woman who gave that interview (which I linked to in my post at 2:53 p.m. of 12/5/06) is one of the ANTM story editors who went on strike for a WGAw contract.
Your earlier post, addressed in response to a quote you pulled from me, seemed to imply that you assumed I was passing judgment on the quality of the work rather than simply asking that the WGAw limit its organizing efforts to those who produce literary material.
I was not passing judgment in that regard. I hope you and others now understand that, and that, further, I wholeheartedly support bringing writers in every genre into the WGAw. My issue is that the current WGAw leadership is not clearly defining the term “writer” and is actively pursuing editors and others who do not create literary material.
In that respect, I totally agree with you. My response wasn’t really aimed at you, it was aimed at the big JO.
Then why are we still calling them the ANTM writers? Aren’t they in fact editors?
I’m not a big fan of the show but have seen it once or twice. At least a couple of the lines Tyra says do have to be written. For example when she boringly recites in every single show what the prize consists of. I assume somebody told her what to say.
But I would very much doubt that more than a single person would be needed to write that amount of dialogue. Editors do put stories together, but their function is distinct from that of writers (even in books, my editor has quite a bit of control over the direction and shape of the story, but would not describe herself as a co-author). Mazin points out accurately that if we redefine any storytelling function as writing, then directors and editors must be included and the already limited rights of screenwriters will recede.
There are 12 editors looking for work as a result of this strike, it would appear, not 12 writers.
Louise:
I’ve been mostly calling them “reality employees.”
Now, a bit of criticism for IA…doesn’t it make you guys a wee bit uncomfortable to know that your deal is more attractive to the companies than ours? Isn’t there a decent possibility that negotiating for a better deal closer to the WGAw’s is possible, even if only by using the WGAw as a stalking horse?
Good point. The IATSE, historically, has let other unions lead the way. And yeah, it makes me a little unhappy that IA wages and benefits often lag. But I understand many of the reasons:
1) There were decades —the forties through the sixties — where the IA was a fairly passive labor organization. (In the thirties and forties, it was more than passive, it was corrupt.) Although Short has made the IA more aggressive, it still has a long-time reputation of being “easier” to deal with than the WGA and SAG. (The DGA is in its own category.)
2)The IA reps a 100,000 film workers nation-wide, some of them highly skilled, others not. Large numbers of them are roped into a Basic Agreement that encompasses directors of photography, grips, best boys, make-up artists and you name it. Sadly, contracts that cover such a wide swath of workers tend to be — of necessity — a little on the skim milk side, so the IA ends up with less leverage than, say, a guild that has a lock on a smaller, in-demand, highly skilled group. (No need to mention names.)
3) The IATSE, like other unions, is saddled with the collective bargaining agreements that went before. Some of these earlier agreements, frankly, were lousy (I was around when some of them were negotiated), and now the IA reaps the consequences. But then, all unions get haunted by the ghosts of earlier CBAs. (Residuals on 20% of DVDs, anyone?)
Steve:
I just read about the latest war of words between Young and Short. Wow. Looks like this one’s turning into a hot war.
Not good for either union.
Kevin,
“I think it’s safe to say that although Reality Television continues to grow in viewership, most people you talk to about Reality Television will condemn it all to hell.”
So popularity equals quality. Commerce equals art. Editing equals writing. “And now, here’s Bob with the weather” equals “What a piece of work is a man.”
Thanks, but I’ll stick to having standards that aren’t affected by the transient whims of the lowest common denominator.
Coffee is for closers.
Just to be exquisitely and explicitly clear, someone has to be unreasonable about these things. Someone has to put intangible concepts like respect for craft above immediate and petty concerns like money.
There are plenty of people out there who you can’t make this argument about - what they do is inarguably really writing - and they’re not in the Guild. You write a screenplay and it’s put on film, you’re a writer, no matter whether or not the characters on that film are photographed or drawn.
Aside from that, there’s also a process - plenty of folks out there writing low budget, indie films, or straight to video junk. That process weeds people out - some drop by the wayside, and others keep at it until they get to a place where they’re working for Guild signatories. Theoretically, that’s a sign of progress on their part. Some poor schmuck “writes” for American Idol and fancies himself a “real” writer, let him do what everyone else before him had to do - let him write something good enough to get him in the door. Then we can welcome him into the Guild with open arms and no doubt as to the legitimacy of what he does.
I would argue, with a straight face, that writing narrative porn requires more real writing chops than coming up with ways to get idiots to eat worms on a reality show. But what would I know? Things never got so bad for me that I had to work in reality TV….
coffee is for closers.
Ah, Brother Olson, I’ve missed your voice on the boards here.
There may be someone writing dialogue for Tyra, but I doubt it takes 12 writers to do it.
The bulk of the work done to “create” a reality show is producing and mostly EDITING. Editing is a very creative and essential task in filmmaking. Editors can save movies. They can completely change the story. They can ruin them too.
But what editors do is covered under another guild, am I wrong?
Isn’t the definition of “writer” per our union pretty clearly defined as soemthing like “written material to be filmed or recorded” and not “assembling recorded material to form a story”?
If so, is this definition being changed? Wouldn’t it have to be to include reality editors? How legally are our union leaders including editors in our union?
And finally, for all you WGA members who paid the $1500 or $2500 membership fee to join the WGA (when you probably couldn’t afford it)… I hear that Patric has allowed/is allowing reality employees into our guild as associate members and is waiving their membership fee.
Not temporarily. Not until they become full-fledged members. They never have to pay it. Ever.
If this is true, I want my $2500 back. We all should demand it back.
Seriously.
Olson:
Of course, when it comes to union stuff, quality of writing is completely irrelevant…not by choice or philosophy, but by law.
If you write for a signatory to the MBA, you get into the union. Simple as that.
Craig,
Thank you for pointing out the painfully obvious. I assure you, I am well aware that we do not live in a world where I and I alone get to pick who is of stellar enough talent to be a member of our beloved Guild. I was simply taking Brother Arboot to task for veering perilously close to arguing that popularity is the same thing as quality, a view that has always been the death of any kind of creative expression.
You write for yourself, or you write for nobody. It’s that simple.
Perhaps I misread the post, but the underlying assumption seemed to be that because these crapfests are popular with the mouth-breathers, we should change the definition of writing to allow the poor saps who cobble them together to become members of our Guild.
Like I said, I prefer to hold on to my standards. Sure, some of our fellow members are responsible for some real crap, but they still had to go through the painful process of WRITING that crap, and, one assumes, learning how to write crap in the first place.
I can’t speak for Kevin, but my understanding of his post was not that we should redefine “writer” in order to accommodate a now-popular genre but rather that we should not assume that because it’s called “reality” and it is a genre that many (most?) scripted TV and film writers poo-poo that there is no legitimate, MBA-coverable writing going on or that the writing that is going on is not worthy of Guild coverage.
Unfortunately, I think the only people who are seriously pushing for a redefinition of “writer”—precisely because reality is a popular genre that is sucking up lots of airtime that used to belong to scripted series—are the people who are currently running the WGAw. That said, there seem to be many people who don’t understand that the Guild leadership is trying to bring in people who really, truly are NOT writers in any MBA-defined sense. However, because many of them are referred to as “writers” and because the Guild leadership has done a good job of framing the issue as a matter of giving poor, underappreciated artists basic benefits like healthcare and pension, a lot of WGAw members have thrown their support behind the organizing efforts because they feel that to question them or disagree with them is somehow a crime against humanity.
And in that regard, Olson, I agree with you: Nobody is being kept out of the WGAw. Anybody who sells a spec or gets a legitimate MBA assignment is welcome to join. You and I managed to do that, and we paid our $2500 initiation fees. The idea that some guy who has zero interest in writing anything and is making a living editing reality shows is not only being courted by the WGAw but told that if he goes on strike and wins, the WGAw will waive his initiation fee is beyond insulting to those of us who earned our way in via a different kind of risk, writing a spec script that actually got us work. The fact that allowing nonwriting editors into the WGAw could have other negative ramifications is just the bile icing on the vomit cake.
P.S.: Marianne: I’m with you. I want my $2500 back. In this current messed-up world, it feels like the only reason we’re even called the Writers Guild anymore is that the writers are the ones who are actually paying for everything.
Denise,
“we should not assume that because it’s called “reality” and it is a genre that many (most?) scripted TV and film writers poo-poo that there is no legitimate, MBA-coverable writing going on or that the writing that is going on is not worthy of Guild coverage.”
I agree. There are plenty of other reasons to assume there is no legitimate, MBA-coverable writing going on.
Josh, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but the attitude that organizing reality writers (and I mean just writers, not everyone as the current WGAw leadership is attempting) is a complete waste of resources because it is somehow lesser than writing a film or a scripted TV show only provides ammunition for the bleeding hearts who feel that we owe WGAw cards and benefits to fellow artists who work in the Hollywood equivalent of sweatshops simply because they’re making TV shows, without regard to whether they’re actually doing anything that justifies WGAw membership.
No doubt you know that those people make up a significant percentage of the WGAw membership. Enough to reelect the current leadership.
Being reasonable hasn’t exactly won the day in the WGAw lately, either. But for this particular political argument, it might be best to apply objective standards and save the quality judgments for awards season.
A couple comments:
1) With regards to reality writing. Jim Uhls wrote a brilliant rant about co-writing credits. Click here and scroll to the entry from 9/8/06 to read. But in short, he complains about how someone can come up with a good idea for a plot twist, or a couple snappy lines of dialog and in Hollywood make a case for co-writing credits. However, if someone gives an actor a good suggestion for how to do a scene, or a director a good suggestion for how to shoot something, they would get laughed out of town for trying to claim co-acting or co-directing credit. This town’s definition for “writer” has been so diluted at this point. Ironically, the worst offender is the Guild itself.
2) This is understandable if you look at what the WGA is trying to accomplish. The WGA is trying to boost numbers to increase leverage. It has assessed the situation from a strategic perspective, and determined that the biggest weakness in its threat to strike is alternative programming. So it has made a decision to go after reality talent. And at this point, it is clear that the WGA is putting STRATEGY over MISSION. Their goal is to win the proverbial battle, not the war. I see far more effort being put forth in strike strategy rather than defining our mission or enforcing our existing agreements. If the biggest goal is to gain grounds in participation of new media initiatives, shouldn’t we be hearing more about that? Shouldn’t we be spending the money there? Right now, all I’ve seen is the WGA putting itself out there to get more pressure, and forced to do more explaining. By taking such a hard stance, I feel like the spotlight has been put squarely on the guild, and very little pressure applied to the studios. Shouldn’t the WGA be the fiercest protector of the definition of a writer? I’m just sayin…
Does nobody see a difference between one person “writing” a two liner that introduces some couple eating worms… and a person WRITING a 60 to 120 page structured narrative with dialogue that tells a story?!?!?!
There should be a “written lines per minute screentime” rule in TV as to who is considered a writer, or rather who is eligible to join the Writer’s Guild, and who isn’t.
Kevin, Josh, and others —
Remember those overtime lawsuits that Craig mentioned?
In order to argue that the reality employees were not being paid overtime, the WGAw had to take the position that they were legally entitled to overtime.
The problem is, screen and television writers who work under the MBA, by the very definition of the job of “writer” in the MBA, are what’s called “professional employees,” and so exempt under overtime law. In other words, not legally entitled to overtime.
So while the WGAw was telling its membership (and the reality employees whose interests it ostensibly represents) that the reality employees do the same work that screen and television writers do, they should have the same rights and benefits as screen and television writers, that they should be covered under the same contract as screen and television writers …
… it had taken the legal position that, no, they don’t really do the same work that screen and television writers do, that they have fundamentally different professional interests from screen and television writers, and that the work they do is nothing like the work covered under the MBA.
So so while there may be something done in reality television that can be mistaken for writing, , the WGAw itself says that work is not “writing” as defined by the MBA — not creating stories, scenarios, scripts, dialogue or narration in literary form for use in the production of tv shows — and that none of the people who signed representation cards with the Guild are “writers.”
-
Denise,
I think my disdain for the crapfest that is reality TV is getting in the way of making my point. My point is not that those people aren’t writers because what they write is crap… my point is that those people aren’t writers because they don’t write.
Even if I felt America’s Top Mongoloid Garglers was the finest television show in history, the boys and girls who cut it together and write bridging narration would still not be writers.
Seems to me that if we start opening up the membership to people who aren’t writers, we might want to discuss changing the name of the guild, ya know?
Hey, I have an idea - let ‘em start their own union! It worked for writers, it might work for them.
Josh - I agree. If we follow the Guild’s logic to increase leverage regardless of charter, then why don’t we try to enlist actors, directors and producers as well? Or why don’t we just merge all the unions. Not a bad idea right? Studios would certainly pay attention at that point! But of course each party has specific needs that would not be covered under a unified agreement. However, it may not be a bad idea to separate certain key and universal points and negotiate those as a collective union, and then each union would reach agreement on trade specific issues. Focusing efforts on creating that framework makes a heck of a lot more sense than trying to jam reality employees into the WGA.
Josh, I totally agree with you that the WGA should not be opening its doors to nonwriters, such as the people who assembled “America’s Next Top Model.”
I do get the impression that there is some real writing going on in some “reality” shows, though—scenes that are written specifically to fill gaps in a story otherwise manufactured out of unscripted footage, for example. I think the people that do that work probably should be eligible for WGAw membership, though I also agree that at some point quantity needs to be considered. (And NO WAIVING OF INITIATION FEES.) However, I do believe the Guild has standards in place where people need to acquire a certain amount of points for full membership, so if, say, a two-line host intro is something a writer got paid for, maybe he gets, like, 1/2 point.
Anyway, it sounds like we do agree that WGA membership should be limited to writers. Which means that until the WGAw leadership frames its efforts around a valid (MBA-legal) definition of “writer,” I won’t support their organizing campaign.
Denise:
You can speak for me anytime. You do it even better than I do.
Josh:
You missed my point.
I’m agreeing with you when it comes to the people who “edit” together storylines and scenarios. They’re clearly not writers. I was actually pretty clear about that. I even put the sentence in its own little space.
And whey you say…
…I think anybody who’s ever read any of my posts knows for a FACT that I don’t believe that at all. Shit, even Joshua James would tell you that!
We shouldn’t allow editors into the WGAw. That would be retarded. But unfortunately you’re generalizing every single reality show on television. Yes, in addition to narrative film and episodic television, I produce reality television as well. I know you hate it. I know you think it’s pure crap (in most cases it is, I’m not trying to pretend that it’s not) but all reality television is not the same. Flavor of Love is one thing. Deadly Martial Arts that used to run on the Fitness Channel is another. The latter was a heavily scripted show that can be described as a smart and informative reality show; a documentary if you will. No one in the world can dispute the level of writing on that show (the quantity not the quality). That my friend is WRITING. Whether you like the show or not. A group of Writers put that show together.
See the difference?
Wait…let me guess. You’re gonna say NO.
I’m talking about the people who write. Who actually put words onto a blank piece of paper.
Good to know that unions of all shapes and sizes are pretty much absolutely useless. Unless someone in power is intelligent, thoughtful, and well-meaning.
Pfft. Who am I kidding?
I’m a member of the WGA who’s written for prime time comedy, drama, television movies and REALITY. And yes, I do mean WRITING REALITY. Writing narration and host copy is writing, creating comedic and dramatic story arcs out of raw footage is writing and coming up with competitions and situations to place reality contestants in, is writing. Often, the writers actually feed lines to the contestants in order for the story to work. And if it still doesn’t work, you can write your own quote for them and assemble it in the edit bay. Print actually does appear on paper. Actual scripts with act breaks are created. And ANTM is employing writers even now. They’ve just decided to call them “producers.” Any idiot who looks at a finished show can see that little if any REALITY has actually taken place. And thank God the WGA recognizes that.
Now, did they fumble the ball with the strike and strikers by not getting all the reality writers who signed authorization cards to walk off the job for even one day? Yes, they did. But I’m sick of you holier-than-thou auteurs telling me that reality shows aren’t written and that we don’t deserve the same protections you’ve been so privileged to receive because of the Guild.
TLPERL:
I’m with you on the holier-than-thou stuff. I really don’t like Josh Olson’s attitude about, well, anything. I’m an elitist about plenty of stuff in my life, but not about the basic requirements for joining the labor union known as the WGAw.
I agree that writing narration and host copy and competitions and situations and dialogue is writing. That’s all words-on-paper stuff.
I respectfully disagree that “creating comedic and dramatic story arcs out of raw footage” is writing. To me, that’s producing. It’s certainly what directors and producers do in features, and I simply don’t want to cede to producers and directors in features that what they are doing is writing, because it isn’t, IMO.
“I do get the impression that there is some real writing going on in some “reality” shows, though”
I’m sure there is. I can’t get real worked up about it, though. First of all, animation writers are still out in the cold, and you cannot even think about making an argument that that’s not real writing. Second, I’m sorry, but when did we start handing WGA cards to everyone who writes? I spent years writing low budget, straight to video crap in the non-union world, and while it would have been lovely to have reaped the benefits of WGA membership, it always seemed to me that I was working my way towards that. It never occurred to me to whine that I deserved to be let in. I did my time, I earned my card. Good system. I like it.
You do your time in the mines and earn your place at the big table. Just typing “Fade In” doesn’t do it, and I don’t see any reason why it should. Reality shows/straight to video/porn…. do the work. Log the hours. Work your way into it. Seemed fair to me then, seems fair to me now.
As for my “holier than thou” attitude, forgive me for thinking that writing is a rarified talent. But it is. Any writer who DOESN’T cop to a holier than thou attitude about his craft is almost certainly lying. This isn’t ditch digging. I’ve dug ditches. This is harder. Not everyone can do it. If they could, we wouldn’t be having these discussions.
However, while Mazin is thoroughly and reprehensibly wrong on that point, he’s dead right on the other thing - if we allow that turning raw footage into a story is writing, we’re gonna have to let every member of the DGA into our Guild. I’ll burn my card when that happens. You can hold me to it.
I was simply taking Brother Arboot to task for veering perilously close to arguing that popularity is the same thing as quality, a view that has always been the death of any kind of creative expression.?
?I think anybody who?s ever read any of my posts knows for a FACT that I don?t believe that at all. Shit, even Joshua James would tell you that!
Uh, nope. With all due respect.
I believe the impression I have of your views on the matter is that quality is not objective, it’s strictly subjective. Therefore if something is popular, it has a version of quality, regardless of the views of those in the know in that field. That’s the impression I’ve gotten over the past year. Notice Olson isn’t saying that you BELIEVE popularity equals quality, just that you’re veering periously close to it.
And though I disagree, why objective to that characterization?
You believe quality to be strictly subjective (a position Craig holds as well) while I believe there to be an objective quality to craft (which, I believe, Brother Olson also believes).
I don’t want to tussle again on the quality issue, just wanted to clear up my position as that my name was invoked, I certainly don’t wish to flare up the objective quality versus the subjective quality debate we’ve enjoyed here yet again (fun as that was) … we can go back and revisit Craig’s original debate on the matter (History of the Debate, I believe it was) rather than interupt this very valuable exchange on the subject of union action, which is more important.
So please, guys, this may sound funny coming from someone as feisty as me, but let’s keep on the union thing and table the other battles for later … this is good stuff and I ain’t saying much during it because I’m busy listening …
And though I disagree, why objective to that characterization?
I meant to write, why object to that characterization … sigh. It’s early in the AM and I evidently have a ways to go as a writer yet.
I second every word in Olson’s last post. I’m in exactly that spot right now, writing produced material without being WGA. And you know what, that’s fine. Firstly all my contacts are non-MBA signatories so I might not be working if I were to join at this point. Secondly, I too believe in paying your dues. The longer it takes, the bigger the rewards. It’s called work-karma but I’m veering off point. The point is that I’ve written 3 produced animated features and am not even eligible to join the WGA, and the idea that some dude writes the little thought bubbles on ‘blind date’ and BANG he’s in irrates me, to put it lightly.
I have no problem with a union trying to increase its membership. more members, more power, I got it. But start with the right people.
Ted:
“So so while there may be something done in reality television that can be mistaken for writing, , the WGAw itself says that work is not “writing” as defined by the MBA — not creating stories, scenarios, scripts, dialogue or narration in literary form for use in the production of tv shows — and that none of the people who signed representation cards with the Guild are “writers.”
So what the heck are they doing in the WGA?!?!
Johnny:
Eligibility in the WGAw isn’t based on some fraternity rush where people reject you for not being cool enough. It’s a simple equation. Sell or be hired to write a screenplay under a WGAw contract, get into the union.
I think Olson’s sanctimony can cloud the truth of our union, which is that it’s not a very large Algonquin table of self-anointed geniuses, but a federally-regulated association of employees.
Laborers, in short.
The truth is that if you’re approached to write an animated feature for another company, you should at least ask if you can be hired under a WGAw animation agreement. If the company agrees, the gates will swing open for you, and you can become one of Olson’s Angels… :)
Can anyone think of a past labor situation analogous to this one? Meaning, a union with a healthy monopoly (TV writers) threatened by the emergence of a new, competing industry (reality TV)? It’s like airline pilots suddenly being confronted with hovercraft travel, and the hovercraft pilots are organized under a different union.
If this has happened before, there might be lessons to be drawn.
One last thought: if I was a reality writer, I’d take Olson’s advice and start my own union. IATSE is (wisely) looking out for its huge numbers of below-the-line workers… it’s never going to jeopardize production for the sake of reality writers/editors.
“The point is that I’ve written 3 produced animated features and am not even eligible to join the WGA, and the idea that some dude writes the little thought bubbles on ‘Blind Date’ and BANG he’s in irrates me, to put it lightly.”
Does it bother you when people don’t have to ‘pay dues’ by working for non-sigs, i.e. their first sale gets them in the Guild?
Or, for that matter, would it bother you if a member got in by, let’s say, writing questions for Jeopardy?
That’s not to say I don’t agree with your general point. Just curious about these particular parts.
Craig,
The Bombs asks you this: aren’t more and more reality shows becoming “outlined reality?” Aren’t reality shows that have pre-staged incidents, with participants who have instructions to carry the incident in a specific direction, getting very close to “Curb Your Enthusiasm” or “Borat?”
It seems to me that reality does not YET have “writers,” but it’s starting to head that way. At some point, a lot of these shows will have pre-arranged archs, and each episode will be tightly outlined…maybe. In fact, many of the shows i’m talking about: “Rob & Big”, “Flavor of Love” (which you know about), etc, aren’t really reality at all. They’re just shy of being scripted. Only the incidental shit by accident.
Thanks,
M.L.Bomb
Craig,
I understand the basic mechanics of the union. What I don’t understand is that an effort is being made to allow reality writers in, while real writers are not.
Ryan,
Does it bother me when people don’t have to ‘pay dues’ by working for non-sigs, i.e. their first sale gets them in the Guild?
Let me put it to you this way, if some bastard woke up one morning with an idea for a script, sat down at his computer, didn’t stop typing until he had 120 pages, pressed print and sold the thing for a million dollars the next day, I’d still think he’d “deserve” to be eligible to join the WGA because he wrote a story, not a thought bubble.
Would it bother me if a member got in by, let’s say, writing questions for Jeopardy?
Hell, yeah.
Though in that particular case (Jeopardy) we’re getting close to that “written lines per minute screentime” rule in TV I mentioned in an earlier post. I’m not advoc