Authorization Approved - 90%
Quick newsflash.
The SAV passed.
The stats.
5,507 votes 4,974 Yes (90.3%) 533 No (9.7%)
That’s a decent result for the Guild. The turnout was higher than most turnouts, but lower than ideal. The 90% is right at the border of what you hope for in a SAV.
That 533 number is a bit worrisome.
Either way, it’s a victory for the Guild in terms of leverage.
If they use this as impetus for a strike, then it’s a loss for us all. Perhaps a necessary one, perhaps not. The next few weeks will tell.
Craig,
This from Variety…
“And Nick Counter, president of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, downplayed the results. He said the level of support for a strike authorization was not surprising and noted that concerns had been raised over how the Guild had conducted the balloting — which included contacting members who had not voted and not bringing in an independent party to count the ballots…”
I think the AMPTP will be linking to your web site more and more.
And Nick Counter, president of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, downplayed the results. He said the level of support for a strike authorization was not surprising and noted that concerns had been raised over how the Guild had conducted the balloting — which included contacting members who had not voted and not bringing in an independent party to count the ballots
Craig, it’s time to come clean. Are you getting paid by the AMPTP? And if so, how much?
Since you’re happy to tell us all how you make seven figures for your films, I’m sure you’ll be happy to tell us about this, too.
It’s 90% of 50%. I think a lot of people who disagreed abstained rather than vote no.
I am very concerned that constitutionally the SAV is no longer valid since the two sides can no longer be said to be at an impasse after the residuals rollback was taken off the table. Certainly the WGA should have responded to this in some manner, probably by taking the ludicrous reality proposals off the table.
I have no confidence in the negcomm who seem to think that waterboarding the AMPTPA is the way ahead. What needs to happen urgently is for the irrelevant items to be deleted from both sides proposals so that we can get down to talking about the only issue which matters: downloads.
None of the other causes are worth going to the mattresses for, but downloads are. The sooner we get to that point the better. But at this rate it will be Christmas before we get there, in which time no pitches or specs will have been bought and the motion picture writers will be hurting badly.
“Writers do not want to strike.”
See? He says it right there. Adds that 5,507 votes is “record-breaking”. Is this a record for most votes cast by the membership? Most votes on a strike vote? What percentage of the total membership is this? Aren’t there just under 8000 members in WGAw? If the 533 “no”s bother you, how about the 1000s that didn’t bother to vote?! Anyway, glad the support was there among those who voted… but still not looking with much optimism at the next few weeks… AYAAW—Verrone, in his latest letter to WGA members
Craig,
And the raves keep coming in for you. This from the Hollywood Reporter…
“A strike authorization vote is a pro forma tactic used by every union in the country and usually the vote is overwhelmingly in favor of a strike,” Counter said. “We are not surprised with the outcome of this vote, given reports of how this election was conducted. Our focus is on negotiating a reasonable agreement with the WGA.”
To answer my own questions.. from variety:
Nearly half of the WGA members voted with 5,507 casting ballots. The guild noted that it was the highest turnout in its history, surpassing the previous record of 4,128 votes cast in the 2001 contract ratification.
<50%? seriously? on an issue this important less than half the membership voted? Even counting “protest abstentions” wtf?!
AYAAW
From the LA Times:
“Although the vote drew wide support from writers, one of the guild’s more prominent members blasted the union’s handling of the ballots.
Writing on his blog Thursday night, Craig Mazin, whose credits include the films “Scary Movie 4” and the upcoming “Superhero!,” accused the guild of breaking from long-standing practice of conducting elections through secret ballot. Mazin wrote that a union “strike captain” called him, saying she had been informed by the guild that Mazin had not voted, and she urged him to do so.
“I’m disgusted with guild leadership for daring to be so bold, and for abandoning such an obvious and necessary prerequisite for a fair and decent democratic referendum,” he wrote.
Craig… Nice work getting the blurb you wanted in the LA Times article. Like the previous poster, I’m curious how much you’re getting from the AMPTP? Or are the seven figures your getting to write and direct enough for you to do whatever you can to derail the efforts of the rest of us?
That is a pretty loose usage of the word “prominent”!
Disgusted, Anon Anon, Futuredave, you folks are in good company:
“The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats’ behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle.” — Ann Coulter
Steven,
Yes, next time the Writers Guild invades Iraq, I’ll worry about that.
I still don’t understand how you “love your union” but throw mollytov cocktails on your fellow writers.
Clearly the AMPTP DOES read your site. It’s gross how this - one person’s blog - becomes the catc all for an opposing point of view. One voice out of 8000 get so much credit.
It’s silly.
Just thought I’d mention the obvious while everyone’s getting hysetrical. Craig’s prominence and power is limited to exactly one individual’s point of view and one vote. He’s as influential as you decide he his. I personally think his allegations of voting impropriety were a little loose canon-like and his decision to withhold his vote potentially self-defeating, but I respect his right to rock on with his bad self and do both.
Nah, the 533 isn’t really troubling. If Verrone’s stockpiling stats are correct, it probably represents all the writers whose “pre-strike” movies are being rushed into production.
Wow.
I know who Anon Anon is.
In fact, he’s a friend of mine.
But the funny thing about Anon Anon is that the very privacy he thinks I should shut up about when it comes to Guild elections is the same privacy he’s enjoying here.
I could out him, but I won’t, because people put some limited faith in institutions to protect their anonymity if anonymity is apparently offered.
I don’t care if Nick Counter thinks I’m great. I really don’t. I find it pathetic that the same people who praise me as an important source of news for writers when I write something like “The Bad Guy” (and Anon Anon is one of the praisers) then turn around and essentially call me a turncoat and a corporate stooge when I criticize the union (like “Your Vote Is Not Private”).
Tough shit.
It’s called having an independent voice and making individual judgment calls based on how you perceive the world, rather than how some institution tells you that you ought to perceive the world.
If people can’t handle the notion that there are writers who both disagree with their union and choose to voice their dissent, then too frickin’ bad. I personally disagree with the 533 WGA members who voted “no” on the SAV, but they don’t disgust me, nor do I think they’re corporate shills, nor do I begrudge their choice to vote “no.”
I just think they’re wrong.
If anyone, including my friend Anon Anon, thinks they’re going to publicly shame me into shutting up, then they really need to think twice.
As for Nick Counter’s allegations of voting fraud, well…
…if we kept our noses cleaner, no one could accuse us of being dirty.
Of course, the result is valid, and I have no reason to believe any numbers were fudged. Nick is just spinning as usual. That’s his job. I’m not going to live in fear of his spin.
Sorry, Anon Anon.
And talk to you soon.
What lovely anonymous trashing of someone who shares his time and experience so generously. Hundreds of articles about every aspect of screenwriting; a public forum that dishes out free advice from a variety of pro writers, and people line up to tar and feather Craig for being disloyal… after he urged a yes vote.
Classy, guys. Real classy.
Jeff:
You’re an AMPTP shill and a douchebag.
Who consorts with the devil.
It’s becoming rapidly obvious to me that we’re entering a very shrill time in our Guild politics. Loyalty and blood oaths and obedience and jingoism will rule the day.
WGA, meet NASCAR.
You described the turnout as higher than most, but lower than ideal. From what I understand, this was the highest turnout in history (or at least recent history.) That doesn’t strike me as lower than ideal. Perhaps in a perfect world, but not the real world. Do you just have to try and piss on it to make a point?
Quill:
No, I’m not trying to be intentionally negative.
The number is honestly lower than I think it ought to have been.
The critical statistic isn’t total turnout, which is a function of the overall growths of the WGAw and WGAE over the years, but turnout percentage. It’s my understanding that prior SAVs (yes, in the real world) had higher turnout percentages than this one, which is why I’m expressing a bit of concern.
I’ll try and get those stats.
Obediance and jingoism? How about giving a shit about our fellow writers? You know, the ones who can’t boast about their seven figure deals and what a tough day they had on the set? (Most of us aren’t actually allowed on set.) Like you were once, remember?
I’m with Craig on the percentage thing. While I think 90 perecent sounds strong, HALF THE MEMBERS DIDN’T EVEN VOTE. How is that possible? Are they all busy? Are they disgusted? Didn’t care? In a nursing home? Weren’t sure what to do? Split down the middle? Careless? Out of town? Out of ink?
But Craig, I’m confused. Is that a genuine attack on Jeff Lowell or sarcasm?
Things get shrill in organized labor during collective bargaining over high stakes issues with long-lasting reprecussions. Always have. I don’t think we, or this period, are all that special.
Kiss Me, it’s sarcasm. Jeff’s a friend. Hell, he’s such a good friend, he posts under his own name.
Quill:
Run for the Board, serve a term, chair a few committees, serve as the Member Liaison, help three writers cut through red tape to secure health benefits for their families, admin a website for WGA members, start a blog, write about writing and then maybe you will have earned the balls to suggest that I don’t give a shit about “our” fellow writers.
Maybe I should have just follow your path, which is to equate bitching on a blog with “giving a shit”.
Don’t like the fact that I earn a lot? Or the fact that I can be on my own set?
Tough shit.
By the way, how’s your Guild doing helping you with that?
But don’t complain.
Craig was kidding. I’m only guilty of two of the three charges he leveled at me.
Give me a break, Craig. Obediance and jingoism rule the day? Lay off the Orwell. It’s called giving a shit about your fellow writers. Not all of us are multi-hyphenates pulling down seven figures. We want our union to get the best deal possible for us, one that has our best interests at heart. You keep slamming the current leadership as being strike happy, but you (and Nick Counter) have never bothered to what exactly they have to gain from a strike. Seriously, where is the glory in causing a work stoppage that will hurt everyone in town?
Quill:
I haven’t slammed the “current leadership as being strike happy.” I think there are some among current leadership who are strike-happy, sure.
Many are not.
Read the blog more carefully. I’m pretty explicit about my opinions.
I think the people who are strike-happy believe that only through a strike will we achieve either a) our current demands, or b) any legitimacy for future demands.
But that’s obvious.
I thought.
“I think the people who are strike-happy believe that only through a strike will we achieve either a) our current demands, or b) any legitimacy for future demands.”
I think that those that are strike-happy want to win things that are only possible through a strike. Specifically, they want to re-open the VHS/DVD debate and WIN IT THIS TIME!
Of course, they’re wrong and we won’t win that even with a strike, but that’s their logic. That’s why they’ve been positioning for a strike for two years — while a deal on internet was possible without a strike, only with a strike can they right that past wrong.
Sorry for the double post, the first took forever to show up. I’m genuinely happy for you that you earn a lot and can be on your own set. Seriously, I am. It’s awesome to see a fellow writer make it. But these latest posts carry a certain “fuck the rest of you, I’m doing fine” vibe. Maybe I’m being hyper-sensitive and reading them wrong - I hope I am, because I dig this blog and have enjoyed it (well, most of it) for a long time now. I’m also very active in the WGA. I’ll work on hitting the exact criteria you’ve laid out before I dare speak up again.
Quill…dude…what the hell is it that you think I’m doing here?
The entire point of this website is to try and help other writers as best I can. Honestly. That’s why I’m here. I don’t advertise. I don’t charge. I didn’t ask anyone to start reading it. I sure as shit didn’t invite newspapers or the AMPTP or anyone. I don’t have a publicist. Never have.
I’ve written a lot of essays about how writers can self-empower, or take power, or tip the balance of power. That’s what I’m about. That’s what I want. Some people don’t like my strategies. That’s fine. I’m okay with criticism and disagreements.
But I despise this air of loyalty-questioning. My loyalty is to my family, my principles and my fellow professional screen and television writers.
Speak up all you want, but if you question that loyalty, I’m going to fight back, because I do care. A lot.
Having said that, you should run for the Board and get yourself as involved as you can. It’s a good thing to do, even if it’s just for one term.
Quill and all other scared fools,
Let me pull a little Edward R. Murrow on your asses: “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.”
And now a little Hitler: “As soon as by one’s own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one’s own right is laid.”
Quill and others,
Just to be clear, you sound like Hitler and that ain’t a good thing.
Craig,
Yep, talk to you too. No hard feelings. But let’s get to it.
If you remember: I shared your feelings about the way the vote was handled, but argued that your posting about it overreached, and would be a talking point in the AMPTP’s spin the next day. It would give the vote an asterisk, and that wasn’t fair— because the offense of the Guild, in my opinion, was more of a professional foul.
It was a professional foul in that it was an attempt to get more people to vote, not an attempt to fuck with the vote. And yet both you, and Nick Counter (apparently taking your lead), imply the use of the Tellers Committee to do the counting was unorthodox.
I also thought your rationale for not voting was idiotic and told you that too.
And, well, here we are: with Nick Counter making your inflated, and in one case erroneous, charge(s) the cornerstone of his spin.
Hey, you have every right to do what you’re doing, Craig. But that doesn’t mean other people can’t point out when you’re being used. And you’re being used. I know you think: tough shit. And that’s fine. Then just suffer through the reprints of the AMPTPs spin.
Because free speech doesn’t mean you can’t be criticized. It just means you can keep doing what you’re doing despite the criticism.
Talk to you soon.
Craig, I don’t question your intentions, and I think that the sniping here about your being too successful to actually care about the Guild is patently ridiculous, but:
Seriously, do you really think you played this whole announcing-you’re-not-voting thing right?
First of all, in terms of the privacy issue of the Guild keeping track of, and informing strike captains of, who hasn’t voted, yesh, it’s sloppy. But in your post on the issue, you insinuate, without presenting any evidence, that the WGA is probably also keeping track of how people voted: Will they make a list of the “no” voters?
And if they do, any guesses as to how long that list gets leaked?
Are you now, or have you ever been against the strike?
Why haven’t you cast your ballot in support of Your Leaders, dear citizen-member?
This is a pretty serious accusation, which goes way beyond the known facts. But you don’t present any evidence, and IMO, it’s a irresponsible to imply that because the WGA is engaging in a misguided get-out-the-vote effort, they’re also engaged in this much bigger breach.
If you really believe that this is what is happening / will happen— fine, your outrage is understandable, but without any evidence, you should have kept your outrage private.
And seriously, are you happy with how your post was used by Counter and in the reports in the LAT and the trades? Would you really have written that if you knew that would be the outcome?
I don’t think you’re a hypocrite or a stooge or anything— I just think you mishandled this situation.
I want to make it clear that I’m not saying it’s wrong to criticize Craig or Ted’s arguments.
I’m saying that criticism of the form “what Craig says emboldens or strengthens or is used by the AMPTP opposition” is a bad and dangerous position to take.
Internal and even public debate provokes discussion and gets people active. Active people vote and get involved.
And, while Counter might think that his ability to present a unified public voice for the AMPTP is a strength, he’s mistaken. People know a mouthpiece (or someone just following the party line/repeating talking points) when they see one and they know that what mouthpieces say is just spin.
Whereas people can see for themselves that the decisions that come out of these sorts of open debates have been thrashed out and thoroughly tested. Ultimately, they might be the wrong decisions one way or the other, but they’re honest and transparent ones.
Whoa, the Hitler thing may be a tad overboard. My personal opinions on the negotiations happen to be closer to the WGA than to the owner of this board. That doesn’t mean I’m blindly obediant and/or jingoistic. Or a Nazi. Nor am I a “scared fool.” I want the deal we deserve, and I’m willing to strike over it. Craig, you said pretty much the same thing before the whole brouhaha over the secrecy flap.
And Craig, sincerely, thank you for this forum. I’m sorry to have questioned your loyalty to your fellow writers, your time on the board is more than sufficient proof of that.
We don’t all agree on this, that’s pretty obvious. But I’m proud to be a member of this union, and proud to call each of you a colleague.
Even if some of you are douchebags sometimes. Peace out.
You’re not Hitler… you just sound like him.
I must say Im surprisingly impressed with the WGA negotiating team. They still haven’t proven to me that they don’t want a strike, but damn if they don’t got the AMPTP shitting their pants. My pants don’t smell too good either, but that’s okay if we walk away from this with a chunk of New Media and no strike.
Please, please, WGA overlords show me a sign you want peace. Just a wink, so I can change my diapers.
Quill:
I appreciate your comment and apology. Accepted 100%, and I apologize in turn for my own tone.
Fact is, I shot 17.5 hours yesterday, and I’m a bit, um, tired and emotional.
Three more hours to go tonight as well.
Anon Anon and Mike S:
I can’t really live my life according to some schedule of Fear That My Words Will Be Twisted By Nick Counter.
Anyone who spends more than a few minutes here will get the full breadth of my feelings.
Nick Counter’s comments were impotent and almost perfunctory, and certainly irrelevant to the reality of the SAV.
As to my comments about the vote itself, here’s my intention.
My intention is stop this kind of thing from ever happening again, because the practice of self-counting votes and sharing ANY voting information with members is one that practically invites corruption.
Even if one ignores the rich tradition of union corruption, we only have to look as far back as a few years ago, when the WGAw President (Vicki Riskin) was found to have been ineligible to run for office.
Vicki, by the way, was then nominated for a service award by the WGAw. One of the people who supported that?
Patric Verrone.
Point being, our union has had shenanigans, they have involved an election, we had the Department of Labor federally supervise an election…so yeah, I don’t think I’m hysterical to suggest that our union should be as squeaky clean and careful as it can possibly be…because if not, corruption can happen.
Not did.
Can.
If Nick Counter chooses to ignore that distinction for his own purposes, nothing I can do about it.
Shutting up or musingly quietly isn’t really an option I respect.
Thanks Craig. In a perfect world, there’d be a mandatory waiting period for angry posts. Get some (well deserved) rest and good luck with the shoot.
SML, on the other hand, can still kiss my ass for the Hitler comments. If anything, I’m more of a Churchill. Got that, Neville?
In other news, and for a breaking change of pace — how’s the shoot going?
Dear SML,
You’d mentioned diaphers which fits as you sound jejune. Invoking Hitler to attack another member’s opinions is way over the top. It’s almost as silly as inverting the movie The Professional. Play nice.
Quills,
Chamberlain… damn that was low. Too low.
Dear Mr. Steinberg,
Hitler is the most valid and cutting insult in the whole entire world, thank you very much.
And before you invoke the jejune clause learn how to spell first. “Diaphers…” really? Or were you trying to be ironic?
Perhaps someone could explain it for me but why is there so much animosity to the top tier writers, who people complain will fine if there is a strike.
The way I see it, that might be true, but aren’t those the same writers who actually give some power to the threat of the strike? Surely the Studios are less worried about “Revenge of the Monster from the Make 3” not being made then they are about the production of Transformers 2 being held up due to the strike? Or that Heroes will need to have episodes that less plot and quality writing then it currently has.
Sorry about “Diaphers” kid. I dashed that off pretty quick. Some of us are tired at the end of the day after getting off work, but Hitler? Isn’t Darth Vader more your speed?
Mr. Mazin, you handle your criticisms with class. Thanks for the site. More than just really amazing resources for a writer to improve his craft, there’s a thing or two to be learned by watching the interactions of people over this strike business and over your blog.
Writers losing their shit over another writer expressing his beliefs and convictions through the written word on a public forum is… ludicrous. I mean… that’s what we do, and sometimes we even make it fun.
Greg,
Don’t apologize to me, apologize to your point. It’s now lost because of you. Zing!
“Hitler is the most valid and cutting insult in the whole entire world, thank you very much.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law
Kevin:
You know…I’m still optimistic. I’m tired as hell, and…well…you know the rest…but the stuff is looking pretty good.
I’ve been doing this too long to allow myself any positivity beyond “Well, it’s not an obvious disaster.”
Ruiri,
Okay. Maybe not cutting. Or valid. Damn. You couldn’t have held on to this until the morning, after I spanked Mr. Steinberg into dreamland. I will never forgive you.
Thanks Ruairi for teaching our young friend about Godwin’s law and the concept of automatic loss.
It’s a more lofty way of saying “over the top”.
Sorry… Ruairi.
Spelling errors can happen to the best of us, young one. Study up on Godwin’s law. Spanking isn’t what this board is about. Healthy debate allows for a certain tolerance. Personally, I’m amazed at some of the stuff Mr. Mazin allows people to say to him. Guess that’s what you call feeling secure.
Greg,
You win.
From a non-pro, unsold writer:
Craig —
It was predictable that your blog comments would be used by the opposition to cast doubt over the validity of the WGA vote. Perhaps you should have addressed your concerns to the WGA leadership first before your public announcement.
I think it’s naive for anyone to discount the possibility that the mega-corps despise unions in general.
If doubt can be seeded about the legitimacy of the WGA operations it can possibly undermine the entire guild.
Unions fly in the face of the corporate definition of Free Market — which for them means cheapest possible labor, highest possible profits for the very few.
Let’s just say they fantasize about the day all unions crawl under a rock and die. To underestimate this factor is a mistake.
It’s clear they are looking into the future and the unlimited profit possibilities new media can provide. And they don’t want to share it with union writers.
But where else can they get writers on the cheap?
One thing about the international film market — it has created among English-speaking foreign writers a desire to write for the American Film Industry.
International scabs - entirely possible.
Some say I’m nuts but when you have big US accounting firms firing American CPAs and subcontracting tax return preparation overseas I’d say anything is possible.
I think Craig overreacted to the guild encouraging him to vote and that in effect helped Nick Counter spin the results of the SAV vote.
But just barely.
And no one will remember or care. It won’t effect things at all.
This blog has done far more to help the WGA’s cause this hurt it. Far, far more.
And 5000 folks voting is a lot. Especially when you consider how many current members haven’t worked since Three’s Company was on the air.
“And Nick Counter, president of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, downplayed the results. He said the level of support for a strike authorization was not surprising and noted that concerns had been raised over how the Guild had conducted the balloting which included contacting members who had not voted and not bringing in an independent party to count the ballots.”
If this statement doesn’t smack of desperation, I don’t know what does. Quite a tell Mr. Counter is revealing.
True.
However my ultimate point is the desire undermine and possibly cripple a union. Outsourcing overseas is a possibility.
We already know animation and other “creative” gigs are outsourced overseas.
Why assume screenwriting is exempt?
Here are some US writing jobs that have been outsourced, primarily to India:
Technical writing. Website content writing. Journalistic writing — Reuters has been outsourcing to India for several years now.
I believe I read an article about proofreading and editing jobs going overseas too. I’ll go double check.
It’s arrogant to assume that only Americans are capable of writing American films.
In a tiny village somewhere near Bangalore, the future Woody Allen plays amongst the bengal tigers.
Couldn’t resist.
Bangalor. Or Eastern Europe.
Via an online screenwriter board I agreed to critique the script of an aspiring Eastern European screenwriter.
Action/US political intrigue (he had great insight into American politics). Excellent plot. Solid writing. Only a few blips on American usage of certain phrases which can easily be fixed by a proofreader (heck, I fixed most of them for him).
I would say his script was of better quality than the average newbie spec.
If given the chance to sell to Hollywood during a strike, you think he’d worry about being labelled a scab by the WGA?
I think it would do well to look beyond the limousine windows and realize there’s a whole world out there ready to take our jobs.
No one is exempt.
Post #61 was me. Forgot to type in handle.
Craig,
Just wondering about your shoot if you don’t mind…what format are you using? 35mm or digital? How many setups are guys getting per day? Are you having someone do temp edits while you shoot like Soderbergh?
I’m sure the timing of this whole thing has made it much more difficult, but keep it up. It will come out better than you expect.
SML, In the light of a new day, I agree that the Chamberlain thing was pretty low. But Hitler? That’s just lazy writing. Why go back 60 plus years when there’s a perfectly good fascist sitting in the White House this very minute? On second thought, that would actually be worse. At least Hitler was democratically elected.
Cue rim shot.
What the Guild did in regards to calling members who hadn’t voted yet was questionable. Not even close to a killing offense, just questionable.
But one of the reasons we’re not going to make the kind of progress we’d all like to is the fact that we’re airing our dirty linen publicly.
It’s not that the AMPTP doesn’t know everything that’s going on within the Guild, but as we’ve just seen, there’s a difference between knowing someone is pissed about something, and being able to link to a website the Wall Street Journal just called a valuable resource for writers.
There’s no question that Craig was right to be concerned. There’s also no question that he just did the other side a solid by writing about it here.
I go back and forth a little as to whether or not Craig’s an active company stooge, or just a passive, unintentional, and occasional one, but essays like that are the reason people ask these questions in the first place.
Comparing Bush to an actual fascist?
Screw the rim shot. Cut the idiot bell.
I meant “cue”, of course.
Did you folks get that message from Stephen Gaghan? I don’t think Syriana was that long.
Anonymous,
As long as we’re splitting hairs - Hitler wasn’t an actual fascist. Many similarities, and it’s generally acceptable to refer to him as one in casual conversation, but his emphasis on race over the state, among other things, makes him more of a quasi-fascist, or pseudo-fascist. Bush is also not a genuine fascist, but like Hitler, bears enough of a resemblance that it’s an acceptable characterization to make in non-academic circles.
So I guess I’d have to say that if it’s idiotic to compare Bush to a fascist, it’s equally idiotic to call Hitler one. But I’d defend either definition, if it matters.
The Bush thing? It was a joke. Please don’t clang your idiot bell at me.
International Writers:
FWIW, the WGA (East & West) belong to the International Affiliation of Writers Guilds (IAWG), representing all the unionized or organized film & TV writers and (in some instances) playwrights in the Anglophone world, and in Francophone Quebec, Canada.. An associate member is the newly resurgent FES, the European Screenwriters Federation, which stretches beyond the European Community into the “Eastern Bloc.” They are ALL sympathetic, and cooperative.
In 1988, when the companies went to Canada, Australia, the BBC, and New Zealand, guess what? The writers there, and their unions, DID NOT SCAB. Will they stand together for us again? Would we do the same for them in this digital millenium?
I am the elected Chair of the IAWG’s “Policy Research Group,” the closest sub-entity it has that resembles a governing body.
The support and good will is palpable, WGA west has been generous with supplying “secretariat” services, and the IAWG offers financial and logistical support to new and associate members, like South Africa and the Irish Republic.
OUTSOURCING is not the problem, SCABBING is what threatens a Union. Unlike trade unions and semi-skilled labor, Writers and other above-the-line unions include in their membership a large proportion of all those who “work in the trade,” as the DGA puts it.
The job of organizing writers for their collective interest, and to advance their global common interests began decades ago, and continues through today.
Oops, I’m not “Anonymous.” Posting/preview error.
Carl Gottlieb Chair, Policy Research Group The International Affiliation of Writers Guilds
Where does independent film fall in all of this? And what about independent films made in other countries, would working on those be considered scabbing?
I understand that working for a company that is not on a strike list would be “okay” but would it still be scabbing in the spirit of a strike? And should those working in the independent world really be concerned about scabbing when they’re not in any position to join or benefit from the WGA? It’s kinda hard to sell the solidarity line to those writers, isn’t it?
Susan
I get an extra S in my name on Saturdays. ;-)
Quill,
I got it. Rim shot too. Nice.
Susan,
There was a discussion of this, I believe, in THE BAD GUY thread.
Mr Mazin:
As a member of WGA and the WGC up in Canada, one with only a cursory understanding of the guilds and unions that represent our interests, all I want to say is…thanks. Your passion and commitment to writers in general is exceedingly apparent (let’s not forget the writing tips and trench tales), and your ability to analyze and express in an informed yet comprehendible manner is truly appreciated.
Good luck with the rest of the movie, and thanks for sharing.
SML, thanks for that. I read through as much of what seemed relevant as I could. I also read other stuff, too.
I’m still curious about what Mr. Gottlieb thinks writers in other countries should or will do. It seems to me that most of the productions coming out of other countries wouldn’t be (U.S.) studio funded so it seems a bit odd to expect or ask for solidarity from them. In other words, why should they care?
Another question I have is how would we know if the prodco hiring us isn’t a dummy/shadow prodco set up outside the WGA guidelines. I’ve heard of those companies existing before the strike (and even know of a WGA writer who’s been hosed by one and not helped by the guild), so I know they’re not fictional. So who’s keeping track of them?
Susan
A question regarding the strike rules: New Media is not covered by the MBA. There are currently writers who do New Media work for signatories. These writers are not allowed into the WGA for the work they do. If the WGA goes on strike and these non-union writers continue the work they are already doing…they will be black-listed from the WGA forever?
Is this a valid reading of the strike rules? If so, do WGA writers feel this is fair? It would essentially be forcing writers who are not allowed in the guild to go on strike with the guild. And that’s with no guarantee that they’ll see the benefits of the strike (should it occur).
Thanks SML
John Brownlow:
Consider this, though:
In this negotiation, the 2004 MBA represents the status quo. Those are the terms we’ve won in past negotiations, now its time for to negotiate the 2007 MBA. Obviusly, the Guild’s puprose in negotiating the 2007 MBA is to come away with terms better than the 2004 MBA, but certainly no worse than the 2004 MBA.
But the rollbacks that are on the table right now, even with the residual items removed, represent a potential 2007 MBA which terms are substantially worse that those in the 2004 MBA.
So the AMPTP took one rollback off the table, going from ‘substantially worse than the 2004 MBA” to “substantially worse than the 2004 MBA, but not as bad it could be.” So what?
They have yet to move from the status quo toward our Pattern of Demands — and I’d argue, that’s what is required to break an impasse.
Is this a screenwriting blog? It reads like a political blog!
Ted,
You’re right, but I can’t help thinking that from management’s perspective, our demands for jurisdiction over reality and animation must look like a pretty significant step back from the status quo as well. (And you’re the one who talked me into looking at the matter that way, actually, several postings ago….)
“Status quo” from their POV being, access to cheaper labor than we’d be inclined to offer them if we got jurisdiction over those areas.
If we needed a sacrificial lamb at some point to get things movings, those items would still be my preferred nominees.
And I’m not suggesting that we should categorically take them off the table on faith, or as some sort symbolic gesture, either. (I was suggesting that a few days ago, but I thought better of it….) But I could see the possibility of making some gains with a quid pro quo type of offer: “If you’ll take these twelve egregious rollbacks off the table, here are a couple of items which you find offensive that we’d be prepared to cast aside in return.” In short, as people keep saying here, separate the posturing demands from the substantive ones, and agree to lay down the former set together.
(Although I do think management’s list of such demands is much longer than ours is, which could be a problem if they were expecting perfect parity…. But then again, their list of demands in general is a lot longer than ours is.)
Susan writes: “Im still curious about what Mr. Gottlieb thinks writers in other countries should or will do. It seems to me that most of the productions coming out of other countries wouldnt be (U.S.) studio funded so it seems a bit odd to expect or ask for solidarity from them. In other words, why should they care?”
Curiously enough, all the world’s screen and television writers admire or envy their American colleagues and the sheer bulk of their organization. The envy our economics, and we envy their “moral rights.” In addition, the spirit of trade unionism and collective action by creative artists is deeply rooted in their culture.
As a consequence, they understand “the struggle,” and while there’s no predicting what individual writers will do anywhere, at any time, it is clear that ORGANIZATIONS of writers will probably support and endorse the WGA’s actions, and urge their members and associates to “do the right thing.”
It’s not a sure thing. They have local issues tied to national funding and international trade agreements, and work is hard to come by, but morally, I am sure they see things with a great deal of clarity.
Anonymous P,
Perfect parity in terms of the number of demands isn’t the way to look at it. All demands are not created equal.
We’re looking for a “fair and reasonable” contract (I think that’s the language our leadership has used). That has to mean the 2007 MBA cannot leave us worse off than the 2004 MBA (so all rollbacks off the table, regardless of how many there are), and it should leave us better off (which means we should work to achieve at least one gain).