Okay, Now It's Our Turn
Today, the AMPTP announced it was taking its residuals revamp proposal off the table.
Well done, AMPTP.
(By the way, how awesome was my timing? I put up an article, and boom! This happens! Total coincidence, of course, but it beats being a day late)
Now, I assume the rest of their odious proposals are still out there, but how can anyone not see this as at least the semblance of an olive branch?
They’ve made a move in the right direction.
If my guild’s leadership is smart, they will respond in kind. Maybe we take away one of our crazier demands (I have some thoughts on that, but I won’t get in their way on this). Then the AMPTP takes away another nutty demand, and so do we…and on it goes until there’s one issue left.
You know.
The one that matters.
Time to step up, WGA. You got the other side to blink. Reward that. Get past the bluster, and get down to business. There are tens of thousands of working people hoping that a deal can be found.
The least we can do is try and find a way to deal.
This also comes just 2 days before the Strike (Pre)Authorization vote goes in — I imagine they’re trying to undermine that.
** But, am I correct about this? Is the 18th the actual date the votes need to come in, or have votes already gone in for a bunch of people and the 18th is the day they tally them?
I’m encouraged. Let’s see how the rest of the week plays out.
I don’t see how this would undermine a strike authorization vote. First off (as you suspect), most of the votes are probably in. Second, wouldn’t this enhance the SAV?
most votes are likely in but members can vote in person on the 18th. also, the tone of the meeting and the members’ questions will certainly be affected by the timing of the crafty mr. counter’s move. touche’
“I don’t see how this would undermine a strike authorization vote. First off (as you suspect), most of the votes are probably in. Second, wouldn’t this enhance the SAV?”
I was thinking that with the AMPTP bending that people might be less willing to pre-authorize — but, now that you mention it, the fact that the threat of the SVA seems to have gotten the studios to move will likely encourage “yes” votes.
Maybe the WGA should give up its proposal that Nick Counter light his nostril hairs on fire and run to Catalina.
That’s the only demand that I can see that is equal in “craziness” to the residual revamp proposal. The WGA can give that up and call it even.
Yes. This is wicked cool!!! It’s time for the WGA to man up… although I give them props for their poker skills. They had balls not being the first one to talk peace.
I’m optomistic again and looking forward to our guys’ response.
i personally would strike to the death over the catalina/nostril hair proposal
Agree with Dave L. They’ve got the draconian demands. Not us. Hence the SAV. Hence the result… so far. This doesn’t undercut the SAV, but strenghtens it. But there are still miles to go… I get that.
I’m only surprised by the timing of this — I thought they would wait until after the SAV vote came in.
Every contract negotation, Nick Counter is always spouting off to the press about how ridiculous the writers are being. The difference this time is that the AMPTP is going up against a WGA negotiating committee that… well, has a backbone.
And really all that means is that at the end of the day the WGA will get a deal that is slightly better than what they had before but still won’t compensate writers fairly.
I think the LA Times story that appeared today about giving up residuals figured heavily into this … that story was full of human interest stuff that made the studios look bad for threatening to remove residuals.
An obvious, but clever ploy by the producers. I hope that the WGA Negotiating Committee does not take ANYTHING off the table because of this. The AMPTP put this absurd proposal on the table for the preecise purpose of taking it off the table to appear to be negotiating in “good faith.” It’s a sham. It’s theater. The WGA should ignore it.
Hold on!
It’s a good thing that the producers took their reformulate residuals proposal off the table… HOWEVER — we all knew is was just bat shit crazy — an example of the AMPTP playing hardball at the outset of negotiations! No one took it seriously. I can’t see how we can reward them for this by caving on some our our demands! Which are in fact, not bat shit crazy.
The way I see it — we are today, where we should have been 6 or 8 weeks ago, when negotiations began. With the residual plan on the table, we writers were in an 8 foot grave… without it our grave is still 6 feet deep. We have a long way to climb out before this thing is fair and equitable.
Anon,
If they ignore it, we start looking like the bad guys. We are fighting for justice, agreed. But it’s not like we’re working 12 hour days with Sundays off to go to church.
We’re fighting for reasonable compensation and so we should be reasonable when the opportunity presents itself, no matter how contrived.
And if the WGA has no points they can pull from the table, that everything they’re asking for is legit, then we’ve been duped by ignorant leadership. But I doubt they’re that stupid or stubborn.
There’s not seriously anyone in town who actually believes that this was a case of the studios “blinking,” is there? They were never serious about the revamped residuals, or at least they knew it would never, ever, fly. It was just a card to play, something to take off the table to look like they were compromising. I pray that the WGA has some equally ludicrous “demand” that they can withdraw to call Counter’s bluff.
I’ve always been very conservative when it comes to contract issues and would most likely have voted “no” on the SAV were it not for the attempt to rollback residuals. By proposing such a drastic measure, they really shot themselves in the foot — ensuring that conservatives like myself vote YES instead. In my opinion, WU has done nothing. It’s the AMPTP that has united us with their over-the-top proposal.
The removal of a thermonuclear death-strike proposal (that was a non-starter to begin with) is not a concession. It’s a ploy to appear conciliatory and paint us as unreasonable when we don’t have a similar ridiculous proposal to dramatically sweep off the table. That being said, I think the phony backpedaling does mean talks are approaching a serious stage. Let’s hope.
If the internet issue is the only one that matters, then I really don’t see how the AMPTP and WGA can let a strike happen at this point. Residuals are here to stay. We’re now talking about a percentage of internet revenue. We make money only if they make money. If they believe there’s very little money to be had, then there’s no reason to let this continue.
Brooks,
Yes.
Steven,
Good faith is a great political tool. AMPTP used it first. It’s a great move on their part whetherthe issue was fictional or not. We should appreciate the skill and timing by responding in kind.
Connie,
I believe they blinked. It may have been over a non-starter, but they still blinked… symbolically. In negotiation they’ve opened the door It’s our jobs to keep it open and close it only when it’s necessary.
How do folks usually refer to the AMPTP out loud? The A-M-P-T-P? The Alliance? Amptip? I’ve been discussing this offline a bunch and want to get it right. Thanks.
Dave L.:
The AMPTP proposal was crazy in that is was overtly unreasonable.
The WGA’s pattern of demands is just as crazy, but is appears reasonable.
I mentioned the reality demands in a previous thread, which pretty much appropriate the “story producer” credit so Companies can give it to writers, but wouldn’t actually do a goddamn thing to get actual “story producers” a union contract. Just … bizarre. It’s pays lip service to the cause the Guild’s been crusading on for the last two years, but doesn’t even try to accomplish anything meaningful.
Here’s another: the product integration demand. “Add a new article that defines product integration and requires that the writer of television or theatrical motion pictures be afforded the right of prior consultation and effective participation in decisions concerning proposed product integration.”
Sounds reasonable, huh? Sound like, if we won it, it would give writers a lot more say over writing advertisements disguised as dramaturgy, huh?
Pfft. The way the MBA defines “writer,” if a studio went to the new guy in the marketing department and said “We want you to write a scene where Jim and Pam extol the wonders of Hunts Classic Italian Zesty And Spicy Pasta Sauce, ‘kay?” and the new guy says “Would I? You bet!” … then the “writer” has just be afforded the right of prior consultation and effective participation in decisions concerning proposed product integration.
Because, per the MBA, “writer” means someone who is contracted by the Company as writer to write and revise literary material, as defined in the MBA; or someone who is under contract to the Company in any capacity who writes and revises literary material at the Company’s direction or with its consent.
Before that product integration demand could have any teeth or meaning whatsoever, the AMPTP would first have to agree to contract only one person in the job of “writer” on any given theatrical or television motion picture, and to not use literary material written and revised by anyone else other than the “writer” in the production of the motion picture.
In other words, implicit in the product intergration demand is either the belief that the AMPTP, sometime in the past, had agreed to a “no rewriters” term in the MBA, or an absolute lack of interest in making reasonable demands.
Both are crazy; the first, though, is just … bizarre.
And the 2.5% of 100% demand for residuals on all internet exhibition other than rental? That is more than double the rate the WGA has had on the table for the last six years. From the AMPTP’s point of view, that demand, which ignores bargaining history and terms of the MBA, is no less crazy then the AMPTP going from its agreement to pay residuals on all internet exhibition that’s been in place for the last six year, to proposing to turn our residuals rights into nothing more than quaint and antiquated language in a contract.
If you’re wearing tin foil underwear to deflect Martian death rays under your clothes, you’re still wearing tin foil underwear to deflect Martian death rays.
Here’s a procedural question— because of the constitutional murkiness surrounding this strike authorization, I don’t quite get how a strike would actually proceed.
If a strike is in fact called for by the board…
Would the writers have any advanced notice?
When would those notices and reporting and all that stuff the WGA strike order calls for have to be implemented? I would expect, for example, if a strike occurs on the first of Nov, we’d have to have notified our agents at least a few days prior to that (via registered mail or whatever it’s supposed to be) that they’re not authorized to represent us during the strike period. But if the strike is sprung on us that day or the day before, how could there possibly be time to do that + recall all spec scripts (which I don’t even get how we’re supposed to do), etc.
I’ll say this— the sequence of events in Ted Elliot’s interpretation of the constitutional procedure for a strike at least make sense. The membership would vote on a strike date and could prepare accordingly. This tentative strike authorization situation makes it pretty hard to plan for the future.
Finally, to answer #21— I would just say “the management” or “the companies” or “those greedy bastards” something and not risk spitting on whomever you’re speaking with. Er, I mean, “on whomever with whom you are speaking”. Something like that.
AYAAW
What the?!
Is this…the end?
The end of my beautiful dream?
More beautiful even than San Francisco - which I forsook to chase it down.
My dream…of becoming a scab in 2007.
(sob)
———————->
With all respect, Craig, it’s not our turn.
This is a negotiation, not a disarmament. They made the mistake of asking for a crazy demand— the end to residuals as we know it— and they overreached. Our proposals are at least on the playing field of negotiations. Even if you or Ted think we’re asking too much, we are at least talking about percentages, and not the end of percentages.
Look at it this way.
We are playing poker with the AMPTP. We have chips; they have chips. For the longest time they’ve been yelling: Give us the pot or we’ll flip over the table! We’ve been saying: No, let’s just play some poker. They continued to grab the table, yelling: Give us the pot or we’ll flip over the table. And we said, no, thank you.
It was only when we threatened to walk away from the table that the AMPTP decided they weren’t getting anywhere threatening to flip over the table. So they stopped. Good. Now we can play some poker. The fact that they let go of the table doesn’t mean they deserve a portion of the pot, or some chips from our pile. It just means now everybody is ready to play some poker.
So here we go.
Anon anon,
Did you read Ted’s post (22) above?
Sometimes to win at poker you have to call not raise.
When this is all over I’m going to make a catalog of all the crazy analogies everyone’s been using on this site. Everything from the Iraqi invasion to poker to over-estimating the gentrification of Brooklyn. Can we maybe just ban analogies from here on in, just as a rhetorical experiment?
Mike S,
What you just wrote, yeah, it’s like a pigeon shitting on itself…
Look, this is more like asking your mom for a justified raise in your allowance. Instead of giving it to you, she decides she’s not going to feed you anymore. After weeks of both sides being stubborn, and you surviving only on leftover Halloween candy and expired Flintstones vitamins, she finally decides to make you a sandwich. Oh, and she still won’t raise your allowance.
——————->
I thought my phrase “Even if [Craig] or Ted think we’re asking too much, we’re at least talking about percentages, and not the end of percentages…” made it clear I read Ted’s post #22.
But let me agree with you, Mr. or Ms. SML. Sometimes, as you say, to “win at poker you have to call not raise.” It’s also true that you “have to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em, know when to walk away, know when to run.” It’s also true if your grandmother had balls she would be your grandfather; and that a land war in China is a bad thing.
All true. But strangely enough, not a single one of these principles had anything to do with my posting #25.
Just pointing out: I never said we’re asking too much. I said we’ve got some just plain nonsensical demands on the table, and that the 2.5% of 100% internet demand is not consistent with our bargaining history on this issue — which are things that are as crazy to the AMPTP as the AMPTP’s proposal is to us.
————->
Ah, Mike. S. Ban analogies? Why not ban semi-colons or air or the city of Florence. Now I know you’re a stooge for the AMPTP.
——————>
Yes, Ted, and that’s where we disagree. Of course the AMPTP believes our demands for an increase in the Internet Download percentage is as crazy as their demand to end residuals as we know it. But, and here’s the difference…
…they are wrong.
I don’t care if the AMPTP thinks our request for validation on parking is crazy. They are wrong. Let me say it again: they are wrong.
To believe that the AMPTP’s demand that we end residuals as we know is, in some way, the equivalent to our demand that we get 2.5 % of their take on Internet Downloads is to stretch situational ethics to the point of absurdity.
Look, the AMPTP can start wherever it wants. If it wants to get us to the eventual rate of .00000 on Internet Downloads, they can start by arguing that every tenth writer should be taken out and shot. But when they take this “Tenth Writer” proposal off the table, we shouldn’t suddenly get all soft-hearted and say: wow, maybe we should lower our requested rate. Look how kind they were, dropping that “every tenth writer should be shot” demand.
Again, the AMPTP just dropped their nuclear option. Bully. Now we can start negotiating.
Man, all these free analogies… we’re devaluing our labor, people!
AYAAWAnon anon,
I think it’s a raise to not acknowledge the AMPTP’s symbolic gesture. I’m not convinced the deck is fully stacked in our favor. And the river has yet to be revealed…
Okay, the river one doesn’t work, but still…
SML said: “And if the WGA has no points they can pull from the table, that everything they’re asking for is legit, then we’ve been duped by ignorant leadership. But I doubt they’re that stupid or stubborn.”
I agree. You never get everything you’re asking for in a negotiation. That’s why the AMPTP put their ridiculous rollbacks on the table (knowing, I believe, that they’d have to take them off). It’s also why our leadership most certainly put things on the table that it too knew would have to come off. It doesn’t matter if those things were AS ridiculous as the AMPTP’s things. The point is that our leadership isn’t stupid and so could not possibly have put our final proposal on the table at the start. So now’s the time to move closer to saying what we really mean at the negotiating table. This is not to reward the AMPTP. It’s to acknowledge that at some point, the real talks have to begin. At some point the WGA and the AMPTP will duke it out over a small handful of issues that they both feel strongly about. Will we get our ideal contract through this process? No. Not through negotiations and, frankly, not through a strike. But we can get a better one. And that (rather than getting everything we want) should be our goal).
SML, I understand the poker analogy, but I disagree with the “call, not raise” strategy. We’re not going to the bargaining table with the hopes of maintaining status quo. The DVD percentage is unfair, and if we don’t fight for it we’ll have the same crappy deal shoved down our throats for new media. And I still respectfully disagree that the studios “blinked” by pulling their ridiculous residual revamp off the table. It’s not a blink if it’s been part of their strategy all along.
Paula,
Well put. I’m with you. But I’m still not convinced the WGA ain’t stupid.
Connie,
I think blinking is a strategic tool and it’s been well used on the AMPTP’s part. If we do not respond with a symbolic gesture of our own, if we choose to be stubborn, the AMPTP will PR us to death. We become the bad guys, the greedy, stubborn cocks.
Are we? Of course not. But perception, especially in American politics, is key.
All I want is a gesture of good faith on our part. Then I’ll be happy because I know the WGA doesn’t want a strike. And if they don’t want a strike, it will mean that when we do strike there’s a good reason for it.
————->
Paula: “So now’s the time to move closer to saying what we really mean at the negotiating table. This is not to reward the AMPTP. It’s to acknowledge that at some point, the real talks have to begin. At some point the WGA and the AMPTP will duke it out over a small handful of issues that they both feel strongly about. Will we get our ideal contract through this process? No. Not through negotiations and, frankly, not through a strike. But we can get a better one. And that (rather than getting everything we want) should be our goal).”
Paula. It’s just so good, it’s worth printing a second time.
Anon anon:
Obviously, you disagree with me, but I don’t think that’s where. We don’t have residual formula for the type of internet use being discussed. So we aren’t demanding an increase in the percentage. We won an agreement from the AMPTP in 2001 that they will pay residuals on this type of internet use, but could not reach agreement on what the formula would be. They proposed the DVD formula; we propsed 1.2% of 100% That’s been our constant position since, until this negotiation. That is the inconsitency from our bargaining history I’m talking about. It doesn’t matter if we don’t think its crazy, just like it doesn’t matter if the AMPTP didn’t think their residual-gutting proposal was crazy.
And the problem with putting nonsensical demands on the table as something to take off the table is that it does not create a bargaining history that we can build on in the future. Doubling the DVD rate is not a nonsensical demand. The product integration demand is.
Paula, very well put. That’s pretty much how I feel. We have to signal that we’re interested in finding a compromise. Every deal is a compromise. No one’s starting position is their bottom line.
The AMPTP showed a willingness to move, which is, in a larger sense, a display of willingness to find a deal.
That doesn’t mean we will find a deal without a strike. Maybe we won’t. But the thought of not trying, of two sides sticking to their opening proposals like bitter idealogues…well…that’s too much to swallow.
“The AMPTP showed a willingness to move, which is, in a larger sense, a display of willingness to find a deal.”
The AMPTP offered to piss on us and say it’s raining—then they caved: “Okay, you’re right. It’s not rain.”
Their initial residuals rollback was always, at best, a lie with which they hoped they could use to trick us to give back a demand.
We should go back with something of equal validity. Here’s one: “Okay, boys, we don’t all demand a night in the sack with Angelique Jolie (or Brad Pitt, depending on erotic inclination) as part of our contracts.”
In my honest opinion, the negotiations haven’t scraped the crap off yet—and have yet to get down to reality. The reality being “new media” or whatever you want to call it.
“They proposed the DVD formula; we propsed 1.2% of 100% That�s been our constant position since, until this negotiation. That is the inconsitency from our bargaining history I�m talking about. It doesn�t matter if we don�t think its crazy, just like it doesn�t matter if the AMPTP didn�t think their residual-gutting proposal was crazy.”
But Ted, the AMPTP did think their residual-gutting proposal was crazy. I guarantee you that they did. The Alliance wouldn’t have, on Day One of the negotiation, offered us a three-year continuation of the status quo (sans residual-gutting), if they weren’t fully aware that their alternate (residual-gutting) proposal was crazy.
The Alliance made a tactical error in leading with a proposal that even they knew was insane and a non-starter. They were hoping it would frighten us into accepting a continuation of the status quo. Instead, it galvanized the Guild membership, and delivered, to the Guild negotiating team, the support of almost the entire membership, including the (reluctant, unlikely) support of such persistent critics as this site’s host. Having recognized its mistake, the Alliance has now revoked its residual-gutting demand (which, again, I guarantee you even it knew was insane), and is now hoping we’ll respond by negotiating with ourselves.
I think we’d be very foolish to do so.
The “nose-hair/Catalina” analogy above really was the right one. If we’d included that in our original list of demands, and then revoked the demand a month later, the Alliance wouldn’t have huddled up and said, “Wow, that was nice of them. Okay, now it’s our turn; let’s come up a percentage point on online revenue.” They’d have said, “Finally, the stupid game is over, and we can begin negotiating.” That’s where we are now. Finally, the Alliance’s stupid game is over, and we can begin negotiating.
Patrick Meighan
Patrick and Steven,
From Paula (by way of anon anon):
“So now’s the time to move closer to saying what we really mean at the negotiating table. This is not to reward the AMPTP. It’s to acknowledge that at some point, the real talks have to begin. At some point the WGA and the AMPTP will duke it out over a small handful of issues that they both feel strongly about. Will we get our ideal contract through this process? No. Not through negotiations and, frankly, not through a strike. But we can get a better one. And that (rather than getting everything we want) should be our goal).”
Steven,
The WGA has it’s own shit to scrape too.
Patrick,
“Finally, the Alliance’s stupid game is over, and we can begin negotiating.”
Exactly. Negotiations aren’t one sided. The ball is now in our court. Get it. WE ARE NEGOTIATING. The AMPTP made the first move. Right? That means we move next. We have two options: 1. keep saying fuck you to the AMPTP or 2. symbolically pull one of our lesser demands. Which one do you think will help us avoid a strike and, might, move us towards getting what we want?
(BTW: The AMPTP basically admitted they fucked the pooch with that silly demand. Their confession is huge. Yes, their proposal was essentially nothing, but the gesture is what we should be focusing on… or as Paula put it, “… at some point, the real talks have to begin…”)
Maybe we should reward the guild leadership, too. Maybe the SAV is starting to reap rewards. I understand that you think the leadership got us into this in the first place, but, hey just sayin’ something worked. Even if they were planning to take it off the table anyway, the way they did it sure makes it look like we had an effect. And I don’t think we’re now going to say, hey, they’re good guys and we’re going to get some Internet jurisdiction, so let’s not strike.
Have to say, it’s nice to see more than just a few posts on this board that all don’t fall lockstep in with Craig and Ted. I don’t even have to post anymore (and get blasted by the big two and their followers.) I know that you’re thinking, than don’t post!
Did the WJS bring some more WGAw writers here who see the SAV differently and who have a less harsh take on the current leadership?
Maybe, the same kind of balance is now finding its way into the negotiating room. Hey, we can all wish!
SML—Craig describes the AMPTP’s initial residuals offer as a “wedge issue.” You describe it as “a silly demand.” Here’s what I think it was: we were swift-boated.
I think the AMPTP borrowed a page from Karl Rove. In every election in which Karl Rove had a hand, he always began by introducing a non-issue into the election: something that was utterly beside the point or that was just a publicity-garnering bag of crap that would force the opponent to waste a lot of time and effort addressing.
Everybody knows the studios and networks will never open their books to a legitimate audit, so the idea that residuals would be dependent on the studios/networks showing black ink was always a joke (remember the David Mamet line from “Speed the Plow”—and I’m not quoting exactly: “I’ve learned two things in Hollywood: one, there is no net. And two, I forget number two.”).
I think this strategy, on behalf on the AMPTP, has wasted a lot of time and squandered a lot of real discussion—in just the same way the federal elections have been debased lately. Okay, let’s agree that we don’t all have to sleep with Jolie/Pitt and get down to the issue of new media.
Anonymous,
Why are you anonymous?
I’ll clap for the WGA when they gesture in good faith. But until they do, until they prove to me that the SAV was a brilliant negotiating tool and not a step towards war, I’m gonna sit on my hands and fart.
Steven,
Yes. You’re right.
And I shouldn’t have said the DVD issue was silly. It’s not. But I do feel it’s a non-issue only because we’ve dealt with it in the past and settled.
It might have been wrong to settle, but that’s not the AMPTP’s problem, that’s ours. So when I say silly, I mean bringing up a past mistake and saying it’s a legitimate negotiating point is silly. Does that make sense or am I being silly?
I’m done listening to you retards. Goodbye.
“The ball is now in our court… AMPTP made the first move. Right? That means we move next… Their confession is huge. Yes, their proposal was essentially nothing, but the gesture is what we should be focusing on�”
SML,
Maybe we’re getting hung up on semantics, you and me, but I don’t think the Alliance made any move, I don’t think their confession is “huge” (it’s an admission of the patently obvious and a self-serving attempt to correct their own self-admitted tactical error), and I don’t think their proposal was “essentially” nothing, it was actually nothing.
Not to continue the analogy orgy, but it really would’ve been akin to the Guild demanding that Tuesdays henceforth be called Thursdays, and then, a month later, revoking the demand. No way the Alliance would’ve said to themselves, after our gracious revocation of the demand, “The ball is now in our court… The Guild made the first move… Their confession is huge… the gesture is what we should be focusing on.”
Rather than “making the first move,” all the Alliance did today was finally drop the pretense that all involved agree was silly, sit and the table, and indicate that they are finally ready for an actual move to be made. Awesome. Let them make it.
Why them? Because, quite frankly, we have the leverage at this moment, and they don’t. They were sure we were gonna sit on our thumbs ‘til the SAG contract expired, guys. So sure, in fact, that they green-lit projects through early ‘08. So what’d we do? We called a strike authorization vote 5 months earlier than they expected, and we caught ‘em off-balance. That’s leverage. We need to use it.
The studios have never conceded anything of substance because they were touched by the Guild’s willingness to negotiate. The studios have only ever conceded anything of substance because (and insofar as) the Guild had the power to take said concessions. Not “be given” them. “Take” them. If we have the power (as I believe, at the moment, we do), let’s get to taking. If we don’t have the power, then we may as well have accepted the residual-rollback the Alliance offered on Day One, and felt lucky to get even that much.
Patrick Meighan
Thank heavens most of the people on this site are not negotiating for us. Please, please stop saying that our proposals are all reasonable and theirs are all insane. What happened today is so obvious. Just read Craig’s initial post, people, instead of shouting through your keyboards. The AMPTP withdrew a proposal it had trumpeted for a while, that it seemed genuinely committed to. Whether or not we think it was a nonstarter, the rest of the industry and the media will now look at them as serious and responsibly seeking to make a deal with the WGA. Everyone, including many of our members, are now looking to the WGA to take something significant off the table to show it, too, is serious about making a deal. That’s how the dance works. If we don’t take off something like doubling the DVD rates, the other unions, the press, and many of our members will conclude the current leadership really isn’t interested in a deal, they just want to posture and make a lot of noise. We may think their residuals proposal was crazy and a nonstarter, but like Ted says, they think that our proposed DVD formula is crazy and a nonstarter. I have had my doubts about the current leadership, but this is an opportunity to prove their worth. They need to act, and to do so quickly.
Patrick,
You’re wrong. And I’m right.
If it were up to me, I would take reality TV off the table for the time being. There’s no way in hell we’re getting any part of that one, this round, and we’re just pissing off other unions by continuing to fight over it. Doesn’t mean we have to declare permanent defeat, necessarily: more like we insert a non-binding statement in the next agreement saying simply that we continue to believe reality “writers” should be unionized under the auspices of the WGA, and wish to revisit the issue someday; management gives a two-line response saying that they’ve read and understood our position (without agreeing to it), and we move on. There are a couple of similar sections in the current MBA about other issues. So we save a little face and lose, practically speaking, nothing.
(Only problem is that Verrone & Young still would have reason to view this as a loss—for themselves, personally, if not for the membership at large—and might not be inclined to give it up so casually. Hence my slight, lingering trepidation about them, despite what I consider to be a superb performance from them thus far.)
As somebody said up above, there’s still plenty more crap to scrape off of management’s proposals before we’re through here. The rollbacks were just one item on a long list of unacceptables. A move like this would put the ball unambiguously back in their court, without costing us anything tangible. And then they’d have to find the next thing to offer up.
…Armchair quarterbacking aside, though, I do want to sincerely and very enthusiastically commend our negotiating team for the moves they’ve made thus far, on the off chance any of you are reading this. You’re definitely playing an ‘A’ game here, and I for one have been impressed as hell, and still am. Fervently appreciated, guys. It’s a thankless job, in a lot of ways…but thank you.
“Whether or not we think it was a nonstarter, the rest of the industry and the media will now look at them as serious and responsibly seeking to make a deal with the WGA.”
I’ve read this now a few times in this thread. My question would be: “who cares?” As long as the WGA retains its evident alliance with SAG (an alliance based in the two guilds’ common strategic aims, most notably the claiming of fair shares of new media revenue), and as long as the WGA membership retains its determination to pursue the schedule of demands it has arrived at over the past year, I don’t know what, precisely, we stand to lose if “the rest of the industry and the media” perceives the Alliance as being especially “serious” and “responsibly seeking to make a deal” (and, presumably, perceives the Guild negotiators as being the opposite of same).
Just as the Guild has never won a concession from the studios by touching their heartstrings with its negotiability, the Guild has also never won a concession from the studios by appearing (to the rest of the industry and the media) more “serious” and “responsibly seeking to make a deal” than the studios. I repeat the Guild has only ever won a concession from the studios because (and insofar as) the Guild has had the power to take said concessions. If you disagree, SML, then I’m afraid you are wrong. And I am right.
So nyah.
Patrick Meighan
“…Armchair quarterbacking aside, though, I do want to sincerely and very enthusiastically commend our negotiating team for the moves they’ve made thus far, on the off chance any of you are reading this. You’re definitely playing an ‘A’ game here, and I for one have been impressed as hell, and still am. Fervently appreciated, guys. It’s a thankless job, in a lot of ways…but thank you.
Posted by: Anonymous P. at October 16, 2007 10:30 PM”
As long as you’re handing out kudos, Anonymous P., how about one for the AMPTP? They managed to removed from the equation the one issue Guild members were willing to strike over for more than a week.
Q.,
Read the rest of their proposals before you commit to that statement….
There’s really only one answer, and that’s to put the two negotiation teams in the Periphery with enough Proebamene to last just one week. They’ll make a deal, then, eh SML? They most certainly will.
——————->
I don’t think that’s quite true, Dr. Q.
Isn’t the proposal that guts our Separated rights still on the table?
Isn’t the proposal that removes our name from advertising still on the table?
I think Craig listed those as “STRIKE TO THE DEATH.”
And Craig didn’t mention this, but the proposal that allows the companies to credit overscale compensation against any potential residual payment is I believe still on the table. Could be wrong there. Anyone?
Damn straight… and fuck the proebamene. Throw them in without it. :)
Anon anon [58],
(First off, pardon me for answering what was clearly a rhetorical question, but…)
Everything else in the AMPTP’s proposal is still on the table. (And did everyone notice that even in the midst of withdrawing the residual rollback, Counter slipped in a fleeting parenthetical reference to “electronic sell-through” of digital video—i.e., made clear that management still insists that residuals for movie downloads will be paid according to the current, shitty DVD formula? Digital delivery and “new media” continue to be the elephant in the room….)
But hell, there are vile things in the AMPTP’s proposals that even the Guild hasn’t mentioned publicly yet. How about the fact that in management’s brave new world, a movie with a $39.9 million budget would be considered “low budget,” with a corresponding decrease (roughly by half, if memory serves) in all applicable minimums? And hey, how about the accompanying proposal that raises the “low budget” thresholds for virtually every category of television programming by a multiple of 4 to 12 (yes, 12!) times their current values?
On the movie side, this obviously affects new, and especially future, Guild members more than those already working overscale. But if you’re not yet in the WGA, suffice to say that many, many more of your early sales and assignments are likely to fall into the “low budget” category than in the past, and you’ll be building up your quote off of a much lower floor for a lot more years than would have been the case in times past. (At least that’s how I read that one.)
On the TV side, I can’t claim to have more than a layperson’s knowledge about how things work, but my general impression is that this change would affect just about everybody working on any program that magically went from “high budget” to “low budget” under these new thresholds. Writing staff does earn a weekly salary, but the per-credited-script payment that one earns over and above that is, to the best of my knowledge, pretty much exactly what the (minimum) number in the MBA says it is—even for long-established writers. (Someone who knows what they’re talking about please correct me if I’ve got this wrong….) In short, this proposal would mean getting less pay next year for doing the same work on the same show.
And for future TV staff writers, of course, your initial salary and script fees will start out significantly lower if the show you’re working on is desperately squeaking by on one of these suspiciously high “low budgets.”
So the long-term effect, inevitably, would be to depress writers’ wages across the board. And there are still other proposals in management’s bag of goodies that haven’t been discussed much.
We won the first round today. I’m thrilled that we did. But there’s a long fight on many fronts yet to come.
So they removed the crack pipe. Step one. They admitted their proposal was unmanageable. Step Two. Came to believe…never mind, that analogy doesn’t work. Sorry.
Some people seem to view these labor-management negotiations as an opportunity to get over some personal issues.
Bad idea.
Anonymous P: Thank you for the informative analysis of management’s remaining proposals. But I consider them all to be in flux, just like the residuals proposal was in flux. In the past, negotiations like this normally have taken months and months, and then congealed around two or three core issues. I always figured that, in the end, their residuals, separated rights, low-budget minimums and other proposals would fall by the wayside, just as our increasing DVD and expanding jurisdiction proposals will fall by the wayside, and eventually we will come to an agreement on internet downloads and streaming. It’s like a sumo match with four minutes of posturing and thirty seconds of fighting. We are still in the posturing phase, which in my experience as a Guild member would be three or four months before contract expiration. At that point you’re working through all the emotions of anger and resentment and yearning and fear, and then eventually you get down to a more pragmtic frame of mind. These negotiations, because of the late start, are out of sync. We’ve only had, what, twelve days of meetings? If our contract expired Dec. 31 instead of Oct. 31, we would be right on schedule. But with the contract up in two weeks, and the DGA signalling that it may engage in early negotiations, our discussions with the AMPTP are completely out of whack. We aren’t even ready to get down to some serious swapping as of now; we’re still stirring up the membership. We need to get to that point where both sides are looking to find common ground, and that looks at least 6-8 weeks away. I don’t know what will happen until then, but I do know that we won’t have a deal until both sides are actively looking to make one.
Anonymous P,
“But hell, there are vile things in the AMPTP’s proposals that even the Guild hasn’t mentioned publicly yet. How about the fact that in management’s brave new world, a movie with a $39.9 million budget would be considered “low budget,” with a corresponding decrease (roughly by half, if memory serves) in all applicable minimums? And hey, how about the accompanying proposal that raises the “low budget” thresholds for virtually every category of television programming by a multiple of 4 to 12 (yes, 12!) times their current values?”
That would suck for me.
Craig,
I have not sent in my ballot yet — I was going to vote in person tomorrow. I remember you said you held your nose and voted yes. As I ask around for people’s opinions I am wondering, if you had not mailed in your ballot already, how would you vote tomorrow now that the residuals revamp has been pulled? Thanks.
Steven, et al -
I didn’t follow the family footsteps and go to law school, so I’m sure I won’t formulate this idea in proper legal format, but what’s stopping writers from buying stock in the studios - or the companies that own them -
and filing a class action lawsuit demanding to see studio books for proof of why every movie they produce ‘loses money’ and lowers your stock?
And couldn’t a similar suit for Fraud re: the ‘no profits’ welshing on net points be pursued if enough people had the guts to do it?
Just know,
the real bomb is watching. Always watching.
Continue on my faithful Jake Steeds.
The producers put on three layers of long underwear, six shirts, three pairs of pants, a sweater, a fleece. a parka, a scarf and a hat, and then offered to play strip poker. They’ve taken off their hat, and now they want us to show some skin. It’s a ridiculous gesture that doesn’t go anywhere close to the heart of the matter. Hopefully, a strike authorization will convince them to start playing fair.
The things that make nearly all movies lose money aren’t necessarily fraudulent. They’re very often legal accounting “tricks” that include such things as overhead allocation, distribution fees and revenue assignments.
There are also opportunities for sweetheart deals with studio-owned television or cable networks that are a wash for the company overall but that lower the revenues being assigned to a particular film for profit participant purposes (as well as for residual purposes).
Putting aside my gut feeling:
Of wanting to see writers fight for their fair share vs. greedy producers who want to treat them even worse and pay them less than they already do - looking at this realistically:
It seems pretty obvious that the Big Studios are, well, Bigger than they were in the old days thanks to being legally allowed to merge with the television networks and thanks to buyouts and mergers with Bully Mammoths such as GE.
Since AMPAS has the advantage of a united front and nearly bottomless bank accounts, on paper, they can’t be beaten in a fight if they’re willing to lose enough money for long enough.
Is anything being done to get the WGA, DGA, IATSE, and SAG to fight together instead of solo?
Surely it’s not completely impossible to get around the problem of different Union Contracts expiring at different times.
Ryan’s right. It’s not that the company is losing money through fraud. It’s the way they allocate costs and revenues to the individual films. It’s comparable to owning a company with 20 plants. Eighteen lose money and two make tons of money, making the company profitable. It’s not illegal, it’s cost allocation, and it wouldn’t effect individual shareholders of the company in any way.
Here’s something that wasn’t discussed in the LA Times article regarding residuals.
A TV show I created during the eighties called SLEDGE HAMMER! was released on DVD three years ago and was an instant hit, selling 150,000 copies in North America within the first week.
This was documented in the LA Times. (And, of course, the DVD company had claimed it was more like 30,000… so an auditor joined my speed dial.)
The DVDs have sold well around the world, including Japan, Germany and the UK. They continue to as I type.
I was protected on this series because I made a separate deal in 1989 to control disc rights. At the time, the discs this pertained to were laserdiscs, which was a format only I cared about and that the studio ignored because videocassettes made more money for them. (They actually scoffed at my love of laserdiscs and happily gave me control.)
Fourteen years later when it came time to license my show for an all new release, the term “disc format” in my contract still applied to DVDs… despite the fact DVDs didn’t exist back then.
As a profit participant and owner of the show, my rewards were hearty. As a mere writer of episodes for my own series, my royalties were peanuts.
Thus illustrates the discrepancies between a producer and writer… and I’m both. It’s why I have so much self loathing sometimes.
Whatever gets set in stone by the WGA now will be needed to protect all writers in the future.
Who knows? Maybe one day movies and TV shows will be transformed into interactive holograms that can be activated from a tie clip.
If that happens, one thing is certain… the producers won’t be offering the content for free.
The term “new media” is just as important as “disc format.”
Alan (#72),
You can say whatever you want. You created SLEDGE HAMMER!
Between that and Moonlighting, I was in heaven.
I second the love for SLEDGE HAMMER!
Trust Alan, he knows what he’s doing.
Patrick Meighan
SML,
I laughed out loud when I read, “But I’m still not convinced the WGA ain’t stupid.” Well, yeah, hard to tell at this point. Hopefully we’ll let strategy and not emotions rule the day.
Travis,
Re: your class action lawsuit idea: These supposedly unprofitable films are not affecting stock values for the corporations that own the studios because films are profitable in the main. If they weren’t, the studios would be out of business.The accounting methods the studios use (without violating any laws) allow them to account for costs in such a way that there are no net profits, and therefore technically no profits. This is just one reason that it was so important that we say no to tying compensation to profitability.
Okay, this seems so obvious, I wonder if I’m missing something.
Yes, it is true, in business negotiations, when one side gives up something, no matter how ridiculous, the other side generally needs to counter … but everyone seems to be overlooking that what probably made them blink was the looming strike. The STRIKE is something that is on the table. Push back the threatened strike date and that’s the logical counter offer. Period.
Right?
Hey Alan (#72),
What was your screenname back in the “HOLLYWOOD CAFE” days on AOL? I believe you still owe me an ass kicking.
“The STRIKE is something that is on the table. Push back the threatened strike date and that’s the logical counter offer. Period.”
Though there is no strike date, your point is well taken. The strike is the only real chip we have. Craig and Ted think we played it too early. Well, maybe we did and maybe we didn’t. But it’s played, and now we’ve got to continue forward with it on the table.
And isn’t this place feeling a bit tired? The conversation seems to have moved over to the WA boards. At this point, in the negotiations, maybe that’s where it belongs. Or, maybe, after what Young said in the Thurs meeting regarding the blogs (writing about the strike issues) the air was let out of this balloon for the WGAw members with something to say. Respecting the request for confidentiality, I won’t say what Young said, but you who were there know.
I’d always dismissed the notion of movies and TV shows making much money on the internet because I’ve never watched one on my computer, but after hearing Alan Spencer’s tale I see the significance of paying attention to “new media”.
I wish I could see the study the producers presented. Is it available anywhere?
Paula & co: thanks: good answers - I suppose they should have been obvious.
So now I’m wondering: are the studios claiming (to the writers) that they lose money on all of their movies, or just on most of them —
and if anyone’s getting their net points off of the ones which actually make money.
And while it may be too late or off topic, I allow chime in for the love of SLEDGE HAMMER!
side topic: I found it interesting in yesterday’s news about Youtube introducing a new scanning tool to prevent piracy - the originator can choose to either delete their video property OR leave it up with advertising added in.
Yeah, with over 500 comments in the last week, this place feels real “tired.” Look, WA and The Artful Writer can peacefully co-exist. No need to shill.
Meanwhile, you imply that David Young said something along the lines of “Ignore the blogs…and sharing public information weakens our strategy and our union,” blah blah blah.
You know, whenever elected or hired leadership starts telling you that the less you know the better, or that Information Control is critical to success, or that independent voices “weaken us,” or that it’s important to just have One Centralized Message, I think some alarms should go off.
BTW, David Young sure liked this blog when he and Patric read my criticism of Brooks Barnes’ NYT article and circulated copies to the entire Negotiating Committee.
Just saying.
I was at the meeting at the Sportsman’s Lodge last week and someone asked David Young and John Bowman if discussions on the internet had any impact on their negotiations. They said “NO!” In fact, John Bowman said it was important for writers to debate the issues among themselves.
Capt. Tivo.
Cool! Good for them. Very encouraging to hear.
“Oh, and Hammer? Bad haircut.”
I think I was the only one in my high school who got the humor of SLEDGE HAMMER.
But then, I went to high school in Mesquite, Texas.
I think so. Obviously, Craig thinks so.
But, of course, declaring them wrong does zero to negotiate a contract that both sides are willing to accept.
Which is what I’m talking about. I leave it to others to demonize the AMPTP and reduce them to slavering, irrational, inhuman monsters.
Mainly because I think by doing that, we are severerly underestimating them. Particularly the “irrational” part.
We know what we are entitled to; the issue is, what can we get the AMPTP Companies to agree we are entitled to, and how can we get them to agree it?
And that means giving at least some thought to how they approach negotiations, what they are looking to accomplish through the process of negotation and how they perceive our positions and process in negotiations.
P.S. Again, we are not demanding an increase in percentages in internet residuals. The residual formula for the download/rental market is not a subject in this negotiation. That was 2001. All other internet markets are subject to this negotiation … and, so far in this negotiation, the AMPTP has refused to agree even to the principle that payments should be made for use in all other internet markets.
Re: Ronson … I went to high school in Mesquite, Texas. And I loved Sledgehammer, though probably too young to fully get it. I only vaguely remembered it as a TV show from my childhood until I noticed it had a DVD release.
Side note, Ronson, are you in Los Angeles? Maybe two Mesquite natives should meet up or something.
Ted,
Sorry in advance if this was already asked and answered but is there somewhere one can find a complete list of both sides demands?
I’m not sure where I read it (somewhere in the flood of comments I hope), but I think pushing the strike deadline back (as our gesture of good faith) is too kind a gesture. Oct. 31 is scaring the shit out of the AMPTP and it’s our most deadly weapon. I’m not saying we shouldn’t gesture (if you’ve read my other posts you know this), but I’m not sure we should gesture so grandly.
The AMPTP has barely taken one bullet out of their gun, why would we put ours away?
There really isn’t a strike deadline, though. Our authorization vote just said that a Yes vote would give the Negotiating Committee and the Board the right to call a strike at any time they see fit.
Constitutional questions aside (and the Board obviously disagrees with Mr. Elliott’s astute analysis), we’ve not really ever set a specific strike date, so there’s nothing to push back.
Kevin—
Ours:
http://www.wga.org/contract_07/proposalsfull2.pdf
And theirs:
http://www.wga.org/contract_07/comprehensive071607.pdf
SML #90, that was me who made that suggestion about pushing the strike deadline back.
Here is my thinking. Although you say it is too kind a gesture, pushing the date back does not materially change the content of contract demands, but it IS a concession.
Everyone else (it seemed to me) was trying to figure out which of the WGA contract demands could be pulled from the table without giving up too much ground. My thought is, at this point, none of them.
Pushing the date back does not remove the threat, it just postpones it. Doing so says, “now that you are being reasonable, I won’t use this big stick just yet.”
Not everything on the table is a contract item.
Pushing back the strike deadline is a terrible awful horrible idea.
We have some negotiating leverage right now precisely because of the Oct. 31 deadline. A work stoppage on November 1 not only hurts the second half of this TV season (No new episodes) it hurts next season as well, because this is when pilots are written.
The networks might be able to financially tolerate a short strike that interrupts THIS TV season, but fortune is shining on us, because I suspect their appetite for a delayed 2007-2008 season is very small.
If we push off the deadline we lose ALL our leverage. If the networks have programming and things in the pipeline they have no impetus to make a deal with us.
No strike deadline has been set, so how can we push it back?
Karen,
The big stick is the only reason the AMPTP pulled back. If we gave them that, we would give them more prep time to fill the sand bags. BTW: That’s our only stick. We crack it and we’re screwed.
Ryan,
You’re right.
Senor,
Yes.
As I see it, a pushback of a week or so means work is moving forward but doesn’t mean it gets delivered in any workable form IF talks break down. A LOT of negotiation ground can be covered in a week by motivated parties. Any appearance of stalling/bad faith by the other side with the underlying intent to get pilots delivered in finished form without a working contract in place, could be addressed at that time.
Anyone handling the negotiations directly would know to watch for this kind of bad faith intent, and act accordingly.
Okay, all, I’ll drop it. But do think about the strategy behind what I’m saying - even if you don’t agree with my particular idea. The underlying idea is: not everything that is on the table is a contract item, think outside the box. fwiw.
I actually don’t think Karen’s idea is all that bad. A simple, the WGA won’t call a strike on November 1st is all the concession that is necessary. Obviously, that can’t continue for too long, but short term it is a concession that fits in the tenor of AMPTP’s withdrawal.
I think a lot of people are assuming a pushback on a longterm basis.
Brian,
It’s a great gesture. Too great. Short or long. A day, a week, a month it gives them time to fill their piggy banks full of script pages. The more time they have to fill their banks, the more they’re prepared to wait us out. The more they’re prepared to wait us out, the more our positions deteriorate.
Not until they start negotiating seriously should we give them such a present.
Feed them a red herring, not the lobster.
Craig, You complete misunderstood my post. If I didn’t make it clear, than I apologize, so here it goes again.
Since someone else already said it, than I don’t feel like I’m breaking anyone’s confidence. David said the opposite. That the blogs don’t effect the negotiations one way or the other. That those who think the blogs are a problem or should be censored are wrong. That’s what I was saying. So please don’t get your panties in a bunch.
And I’m not a shill for the WA. I’m a shill for your site. Before the WSJ article, I turned on at least half a dozen WGAw writers to your site. My tired comment was that it appears to me that the comments are not as interesting as they once were and it seems to be more of the same people over and over again saying the same things… lately. That’s why I said the WA was more interesting lately. New people are posting there with new insights. So that’s my humble opinion. A dissenting voice if you will. Off message.
The leadership didn’t say the less you know the better. Young’s comment was just the opposite. It was the questioner who brought up whether blog discussions hurt us. David didn’t even consider that a serious issue.
Please don’t take anything I say personally! If I get a chance to talk to you tomorrow night, you’ll see I’m just another writer slogging through Hollywood as best I can. But even I have opionions. BTW, I was going to shed my anonymous moniker, but than I saw that attack on the last thread. You did the right think to rebuke that poster, but, as for me, and a few others who post here, it still seems like that undercurrent of hostilty towards working writers could explode at any time.
Anyway, tired or not, keep it up, the tide can shift back. And yes, 300 comments over one post is nothing to sneeze at. Congrats.
Slightly off topic, but: In today’s LAT, WGA member Howard Rodman has an opinion piece in which he states:
What’s more, the companies refuse to let writers share appropriately in the revenue stream from material distributed over the Internet. They claim that this torrent is at present only a trickle, that there is no “business model,” that this all needs to be “studied.” And while they search for that elusive business model, they are offering to pay us at those antiquated fraction-of-a-fraction rates. Never mind that, even now, this unstudied trickle is making them millions: Each studio or network has cited $500 million or more a year in online revenue.
Anyone know what his source is for the ‘$500 million or more in online revenue’ claim? Because honestly, I can’t imagine where all that money is coming from at this point…
(link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rodman17oct17,0,1982562.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions)
I like it how Mr. Rodman lays out our demands in the following order in his article:
DVD rates.
Reality organizing.
New media.
So we’re fighting an old war, fighting a stupid war, and after we’re done with those two, we’ll turn our attention to fighting the only war that matters right now.
From variety:
“Still, there may be some wiggle room for negotiators, such as reducing the length of the study by a year or two and agreeing in advance to make retroactive payments.”
Is this a real option? Because I’m down with that. I like the sounds of retroactive payments. Thoughts?
This has probably best asked before but it’s hard to find in all the comments! How meaningful is it that they have dropped this demand when it was only put on the table so that it could be dropped? Seems like nothing really surprising has happened and the negotiations are just going on the same path that they generally go.
The sad thing is, I’d rather talk about my favorite episodes of SLEDGE HAMMER now that its creator has done a post.
I hope we don’t go on strike but understand if we do.
I surfed through Writer Action the other day and saw a flurry of posts asking for recommendations for a performer to entertain at a party.
The avatar for the guy asking is a snapshot of his head nestled between a couple of Hooters girls.
This board isn’t “tired” and never has been. It’s relevant.
Hopefully, we’ll be continuing our discussions here and not on a picket line.
Alan, look more closely. Under the WGAw business section.
“Tired” just means not as informational and a lot of nonsense. BUT there are still some good posts.
But right now, at the WA, Ted has some excellent posts. And I’m saying that even though I disagree with most of them. And there are suddenly a bunch of new people posting there.
It’s not an either/or situation and I’m sorry if I made it seem like that. And I’m certainlyh not shilling for the WA. I’m still stopping here. But one thing you have to agree on. People here are really, really sensative and almost anything can start a flaming session.
<>
What the hell are you talking about?!?!
Just kidding.
While it’s fine to “talk amongst yourselves,” I personally favor public forums like this where anyone can post and see what we’re thinking.