Welcome, Wall Street Journal Readers

Are there a set number of negotiating days or will/can they negotiate up until the 31st (or the strike vote ratification)?

The optimist in me sees it this way, once one side comprimises the walls will crumble and East Germany will be free from tyranny.

We just need a compromise.

I can’t beleave they didn’t mention me in the article.

We can negotiate up to the 31st…and we can negotiate after if both sides agree to it.

I’m sure we writers with spines - however many THAT is - want to see the Guild fight for the best deal they can get, but…

As someone who served in the military when the Wall fell (yep I’m THAT old, and it was an incredible moment I’ll never forget) would you mind not comparing a fight over money to a near- interminable war fought under the threat of nuclear holocaust? Or any other shooting wars?

And if you must, please do so in a satirical way.

‘Coz the analogies don’t compare.

Thanks.

Craig —

Am I missing something? You say you wish our side would knuckle down on the only issue that matters… and then dismiss DVDs, jurisdiction and product integration. What is the “only issue that matters?”

WSJ said:

While the WGA has long had a blog and online forum, it is available only to registered members of the WGA and is password protected.

Do they mean WA, Craig? Why didn’t they say WA? And what blog?

I so confusedid.

Travis,

Which side did you fight for again? Stasi anyone?

Lucky for me, I live in a free society where I can compare my body hair to the jungles of Vietnam and my beard trimmer to Agent Orange.

I’m sorry this is lost on people with spines.

As someone who spent six months guarding the borders of Democracy from one-third of the axis of evil I want to say that my penis is The Wall — and it will never fall!

Er, or something like that.

I suspect the whole debate would benefit from a serious reduction in testosterone, talk of who is bending over for whom, and who’s got the most balls.

John:

Internet downloads.

Steven,

It would suck to have a crumbling penis and to have the pieces displayed on the mantels of tourists around the world.

I think you should reconsider your analogy, possibly altering it to be more… satirical.

Thanks.

Doubling our DVD residuals will never happen, but it’s a popular issue with WGA members. We’re not trying to negotiate anymore - we’re trying to band everyone together for a strike.

Makes perfect sense.

If you want to strike.

Craig, I am under the assumption that their answer/ploy/mantra on negotiating internet downloads is: “We need more time to research.” That sure didn’t stop them from loading up the internet and Verizon cellphones with entire episodes of current, scripted tv.

First- Craig, is there ANY way at all that the AMPTP is actually serious about the idea of tying resids to profits?

I mean, picture it. Just for the sake of illustration, lets say the AMPTP gets its way on that one.

How in God’s name could that lead to anything BUT “pay by litigation” for writers?

I.e. they say the film didn’t make money, so we owe a pittance, or even zero, the writer calls a bullshit flag on the play, sues to open the books, both sides’ attorneys hire forensic accountants, and the writer eventually gets paid whatever the court decides.

Courts are notoriously unpredictable when it comes to settlements of that kind (and often choose to teach ‘ol Goliath one hell of an expensive lesson for trying to beat up on David), so how could that POSSIBLY be in their interest as a new industry standard practice?

Secondly - no ‘fense n’tended but I gotta say that givin’ up on DVD resids as a “sailed ship” very well could be a HUGE mistake.

Yeah “the web is the future”, but it’s a fact Craig, “the future” hits L.A. about ten years before it worms its way into homes in middle America.

Even I still own, and use on occasion, a VHS tape deck. I didn’t exactly run right out and re-buy DVD copies of all the films and TV shows I had on tape, and don’t particularly feel the need to.

ALL of my relations living out in Pa. just got around to buying their FIRST dvd player LAST YEAR.

None of them own flat screen TV’s yet.

None of their kids own an iPod.

None of them have a high bandwidth connection to the internet, and most of them aren’t going to get one anytime soon.

They have BASIC cable - only - and I’m tellin’ ya, and you’d better believe it, there is just NO WAY IN HELL they’re going to pay double what they’re paying now for basic cable to get a high speed connection.

To all too many of them “the internet” is a place where pedophiles stalk kids, “The Government” watches and records every move you make, “there’s too much porn”, you risk identity theft with EVERY purchase you make, and every single solitary problem they ever have with their computer is suspected of being caused by “a VIRUS!”

So yeah, “the internet is the future”, but believe it, “the future” hasn’t arrived yet for one hell of a lot of the country, and it really is possible that it could take 10 to 15 years (i.e. the most of the life of the upcoming contract) before downloading films, TV shows, and other content, makes anybody more money than the sale and rental of dvd’s.

So all I’m saying is I’m not at ALL sure that dvd’s, and the resids issue, are yesterday’s news and something the Guild should just cave on in order to get a better deal on “the future”.

Yeah “the future” is important, even critical, but so is the present. Caving on dvd resids could very well wind up to be every bit as costly a mistake as allowing ourselves to get screwed on ‘em in the first place. This doesn’t impresses me as a “one or the other” issue. Are you really so certain that BOTH issues don’t belong on the table?

I’m not - (yet), and if you are, I really would like to hear why, seriously, I’m not being rhetorical here.

Craig, do you ever wonder why the management spokesperson and the Wall Street Journal are saying such nice things about you? Because you are reinforcing their current strategy— which is to drive a wedge between the moves of the negotiating committee and the membership.

Look, you can say “nuts” about their proposals as often as you want, and they’ll still come over here and plant a big wet one on your mouth because it’s not about proposals to them. They know their proposals are nuts.

It’s about how to get the guilds to accept the DVD formula for internet downloads. And the only way they can do that is by backing up as far as they can from the DVD formula to “negotiate” us— the Guild— down to the DVD formula. That’s why they are where they are— asking for ALL residuals to become monkey points. That’s literally how far they have to back up to get what they want.

So why doesn’t the Guild just call them on this? Because to call them on their negotiating game-playing does nothing but satisfy righteous anger. It does not advance the cause of getting the best rate on anything.

In other words, the currency of the moment has nothing to do with beginning proposals. It has to do with assessing leverage. And that’s where you come in.

You are hurting the Guild’s leverage— that is why management and the Wall Street Journal are so enthusiastic about your web site. You are creating a division between the negotiators and the client— the Guild membership— just as the Guild is trying to create a division between their negotiators— Nick Counter— and their client— the CEOs.

Unfortunately the CEOs don’t have a web site, or we would be doing the same thing.

Management also has the added Halloween advantage of coming on here in disguise— lucky them— pretending to be writers, or interested web-surfers, and undercutting the unity of writers, and continuing to drive a wedge between writers and leadership.

You do this because you are a thoughtful person with strong and worthy opinions. They do this because they are worthless bastards who want us to accept an inferior rate on Internet Downloads from now into eternity.

The only problem is we are in thick of negotiations; and you have just been splashed onto the Wall Street Journal.

Mike, Love your argument, but I’d like to see the statistics. My relatives in Iowa and Virginia, not your big wage earners, mind you, do have broadband internet connection. Hell, their connection is a hell of a lot better than mine, right here in the entertainment capital of the world.

I have to think that the country is a lot more wired than you believe. Now, whether they’re going to move from DVD to downloads, I don’t know. But they’re not using VHS in any of the households I saw. They can’t even rent them at their video stores.

Anyway, after all that, I don’t know what I think about one issue being greater than another. So on that we agree.

Anon I

I agree with Craig that a defacto lockout is in effect for our feature writers, as evidenced by today’s Variety. Is this not an illegal labor practice since we still have a contract for three weeks? Can’t we file a complaint with the NLRB? Can’t we score some P.R. points on this?

Also, why are all the WGA strike meetings at 6 or 7 PM? Does the Guild assume that none of its members have jobs? I do, and it’s hard to get out by 9 yet alone 5:30 or 6:30. I know the Guild staffers want to get home, but come on, we’re on the verge of a strike and the Guild staffers are worried about missing “Gossip Girl”? How about at least ONE MEETING AFTER 7 PM. This is an insult to our membership and evidence that the staff will not be there for us during the strike.

I don’t buy the wedge argument Anon.

The more information Guild members have, the better.

The more we talk about what’s going on, and think about it, the better.

A well informed membership, that’s involved, educated, and dedicated, is a MORE formidable opponent at the table, not less.

Yeah, they get to make their decisions within a tightly sealed black box, and we don’t.

But there are very serious advantages to open and informed debate, and if we can’t rely on the solidarity of the few, we’d dammed well better take advantage of as many brains chewing over our options as we can.

The advantage we have is that, as a group, we’ve got a pretty good idea of what we’re thinking. They, on the other hand, have to deal with the fact that, as a group, they’ve got very little idea of what they’re thinking.

It would be naive to think for even a split second that there aren’t very serious divisions within the ranks of the AMPTP.

The difference is that WE know what our divisions are, whereas they can only guess at the hidden agendas competing for dominance among their own membership.

Right now tonight there are members of the AMPTP sniffing out rumors, watching for “tells” and reactions, reading between lines, and making flat out guesses as to what’s running through, and what’s “really” behind the thinking of their own membership.

The pretensions of “unity” of a “smoke filled back room” can come at a ruinous price.

The studio trolls and (Nick) Counterspies on this website make me laugh. They’re so obvious and make about as much sense as the notes they usually give. It reminds me of the realtors who troll on housing bubble blogs, telling us that everything will be okay.

The truth is that the studio execs and their AMPTP bootlickers are big wimps. If they had balls, they would have gone a lot further than just no more residuls. If we writers work on a show that loses money, not only should we not get residuals, we shouldn’t even get a salary in the first place! That’s right, we should only get our weekly wages if the show turns a profit.

Plus, on my show we get free tortilla chips from Smart and Final! They have never once taken this out of my paycheck! If they started making writers pay for their own chips and ramen, they would have enough money to abuse more children in New Mexico. I should be a studio exec. In fact, I would, but I’m capable of tying my own shoes so that rules me out.

No way do the studios let us walk out. Writing is a tiny part of their production expenses compared to what it was in 1988. Plus, they’re all owned by huge corporations now and huge corporations don’t like labor unrest — witness the caving going on by GM and Chrysler this month. They are letting Mr. Counter have his way for now and indulging his “Trust me, guys” posturing, but if it looks like we’re really gonna walk they will get to the table in a hurry, you’ll see. Does anyone really think they will shut down production and lose billions for the TINY amount of money the writers are asking for? In the past, the problem with the studio chiefs was one of pecker-swinging — they’re so obsessed with being macho and not caving that they got backed into a corner and they were gonna show us! Now it’s all about Wall Street, and their stock prices will drop like a Kid Nation nielsen share if they shut down production. Again, even if they gave us EVERYTHING that we are asking for, this would be a tiny blip in their overall costs of production. They’ll probably pay Vince Vaughan more to do Dodgeball IV than it would cost them to pay us everything we want for three years. AND THEY KNOW THIS.

They are bullies — the bullies who cry the loudest of everyone when the picked-on kid finally hits them back, and in this case they are crying to Variety about Patric and David. “Mommy, I was just joking around, but Patric and David are being REALLY mean and threatening to strike!”

We are asking for nothing and they know it. If Nick Counter blows this for them he will get fired in a flash. And then he and McLean can finally go on that honeymoon they’ve been postponing.

Somebody help me understand, why are DVD residuals a non-issue? Aren’t they trying to take them away? The idea of residuals by litagation sounds like a nightmare. I very much like my residual checks. They come in very handy. It seems just as important as the future internet issue.

Anon - point taken.

But here’s a scrap of weirdness. I live, literally, about a mile and a half from midtown NYC (in Union City NJ where you can actually own and make use of a car).

I can’t get a high bandwidth connection. The phone line infrastructure in our town is simply too old to use for data transfer. Too much noise, due to too many old wires, running through too many antiquated pieces of equipment.

That leaves cable. But our cable company, the ONLY cable company licensed to operate in our little berg, insists on home inspections for extra TV sets. If you can’t be home, for the entire day scheduled for your inspection, they cut the service until you can be.

Which is why nearly everyone in our town switched to satellite as soon as it became available.

Bottom line here - you’re right. We should see about digging up the stats.

In keeping with my other argument for the advantages of open and informed debate, I’ll see what I can dig up.

I’d appreciate your doing the same. In fact it might be a good idea for a few more of us to look into that question.

How many households actually have high bandwidth access right now today?

How quickly has that number been growing? We should try to find “limit values” for that, as in what are the optimistic projections, and what are the pessimistic projections? We should also site sources.

Some sources are going to have obvious agendas in plumping that figure up, while others will probably have reason to down play that figure.

I’m on it.

If management had any balls, Noah, their come-out offer would be: any writer working on a show that doesn’t make money will be taken out behind the Disney animation hat and shot. (In deference to Travis— by non-military issue guns.) In the case of teams, the two writers will be hobbled.

“Plus, they’re all owned by huge corporations now and huge corporations don’t like labor unrest — witness the caving going on by GM and Chrysler this month.”

Um… Chrysler has caved, just yet.

But I get your drift- they will cave, of course, because big Corporations don’t like Labor unrest, they want their work force to feel included, and well compensated- Just like the CW did w/ Americas next top model, and Fox did w/ temempations.

That’s exactly what big corporations want. Whirled Peas. no matter what it costs.

Here’s the thing. We know the studios are pigs. Big pigs. They’re greedy grubbing bastards. They take huge salaries. There’s too many of them in the jobs. They take huge stock bonuses and as someone posted about, what we’re asking for is a blip compared to what Brad Grey makes as a bonus. My question; Where is the guys like Speilberg and JJ ABrahms and David Kelley and Zemeckis and Lucas on this and why, esp Speilberg, aren’t they getting in there and sticking up for their talent brethren. I mean, c’mon Speilberg is a god liberal Democrat, he’ll stick up for anyone’s right’s who not his own kind that aren’t as fortunate as him. Why isn’t he getting in Sumner and Moonves and Katzenberg’s face and telling them to knock off the shit and pay the talent a piece of the new medium and if they can’t make it profitable, don’t go there?

Why isn’t the top of the food chain, the Clooney’s and the Penn’s and the Beatty’s and the Speilberg as ready to rip out the throats of these pigs as they are to take on the concervative republicans and the polluters? Answer? Money. They don’t want to take on the bosses. This doesn’t account for Speilberg. He’s just a pig.There’s no excuse for him. Clooney and them are still scared it could all go away.

I agree with your contention that the more information Guild members have the better, Mike. I would go even further: the more we argue about it, the better. Writers don’t really know something until they argue it to the point of vomiting.

To this I say: fuck yeah.

And if there weren’t a completely excellent Writers Guild only web site called WRITERACTION.COM, I would even argue that the public display of our arguments— along with whatever management-masquerading-as-writers arguments get swept along with them— is just the price of a well-informed membership.

In the same way, if, by some freak of venue booking, the only place we could hold our informational meetings was in Nick Counter’s living room, I would still argue that we do it— because the value of a well-informed membership always trumps keeping internal argument internal.

But of course there are more places to hold a meeting than Nick Counter’s living room and there is a WriterAction web site open to all Writers Guild members. And there is a furious argument going on there about these very issues right now.

This argument of course doesn’t have the advantage of wrapping itself around one member’s opinion. It doesn’t have the advantage of one writer’s opinion being highlighted with little brown squares— because all the writer’s arguing there are arguing equally. And of course it is not a web site being glorified by management or the Wall Street Journal.

Why? Because it doesn’t serve their purposes. It only serves the writer’s purpose.

I’m WGA, and I have written for the studios for a few years. But I’ve got a few unproduced specs in the drawer. If we strike, am I in compliance with the guild if I bridge the time/feed my family/stretch artistically by raising $1M in independent cash and direct an indie based on one of my specs? assuming i retain full ownership of both the spec and the LLC throughout production, and don’t sell the entity until the strike is over.

thanks.

It’s interesting the way the “they’re huge conglomerates” arguments cuts both ways.

One one hand, we’re a drop in their bucket, so MegaCorp, Inc. can’t really be threatened by puny writers striking.

OR.. Strike Foraday above argues, we’re just so piddly to the megaconglomerates that it’s easier to just acquiesce and go on with business than put up a fight.

Somehow, I suspect they’d rather rely temporarily on the profitability of their other divisions’ markets to weather the storm than establish any kind of precedent on labor relations with us…

I dunno about giving in on DVDs, animation (even though it’s covered by an other guild in feature world), and those other things at this point. Because I’m thinking a strike is inevitable, there will follow a long war of attrition, mounting pressure, ancillary businesses will die, everyone in the fight will get worn down, the public will get REALLY sick of game shows and reality television, and after all THAT, some serious negotiating will begin. At that point, we gotta have SOME stuff we’re ready to throw overboard, just as the other side will (ie, rollbacks). I think that revisiting DVD is our ballast to be chucked when things get serious.

AYAAW

AYAAW,

We already gave in on DVDs, animation, and unionizing reality TV. Those are battles lost and, quite frankly, distractions to a less than intelligent body of union members (not to mention the low-brows of the AMPTP).

The NC should have gone in there with one point: we want a cut of New Media. And then haggled, jawed, and, yes, even walk out until that percent is met.

Instead, people are going to starve while Mr. Verrone woos agents and holds onto wars lost.

Anonymous wrote: “Um… Chrysler has caved, just yet.”

So anonymous, I guess not only are you ugly, but you’re uninformed, too. This is from the Wall Street Journal, a few hours before you and I posted: Chrysler and the UAW agreed to a tentative labor pact that includes a health-care trust fund.

Why would you assume that I was wrong and not you, when you’re the idiot?

And what’s with the Whirled Peas reference, you hack. I didn’t know the WGA covered bumper-sticker writing.

Look, I’m not trying to be mean here, you retard, but it’s embarrassing to me as a WGA member to have another member demonstrating their stupidity like this. Do you really think that attempting to shut down Top Model and Temptations — shows on which editors can at least piece things together somewhat — is the same as shutting down all scripted tv and feature work? I mean seriously, I can’t believe you would say that in public.

It’s obvious that you never went to college, so I’ll spell it out for you: corporations care about profits. If labor unrest affects their profits, especially long-term, they will care. I mean, seriously, I can’t believe I have to explain this to you. You might be the dumbest person who has ever posted on this website. And development people post here sometimes, so that’s saying something.

Craig, I don’t think the DVD ship has sailed. I mean, it’s sailed, but we can still get helicoptered out to it. Sure it’ll all eventually be downloads, and DVDs will go away — but that’ll take a while. As you know, studios are still making more money from the DVDs of features than from their theatrical exhibition. So there’s still quite a bit of money out there and will be for while, even if it slowly dwindles.

Um… mr. stikeforaday? a tentative pact that “allows the company to hire new workers at lower wages and reduced benefits compared with what existing workers get,” hardly constitutes caving. In fact, some may argue that it was the UAW that caved. And only after a couple of hours. (according to the WSJ that you’re so happy to reference.)

But I’m the non college attending, uniformed ugly, dumbest hack. you ever didn’t meet- so what could I possibly know.

You seem bitter, everything ok w/ the home life?

One more thing, this is a public blog on the Internets. I’m not a WGA member, but I do, infact, write copy for bumperstickers.

I’m wondering, former cartoon writer that I am, if the WGA can make their prohibition of writers working on animated features during a job action stick.

If somebody is a dual card holder, and writing on some epic at Disney or DreamWorks, and the WGA disciplines her or him for doing it, doesn’t the WGA run the risk of getting blown out of the water if her or him subsequently takes the Writers Guild to court over its action?

Just asking.

Steve,

They can kick you out on your ass if you violate their rules.

Anonymous: I see, because the UAW didn’t reach a deal you’re happy with, that means you weren’t wrong to incorrectly berate me for saying they hadn’t reached a deal when in fact they had.

And yes, if you must know, my dog has cancer — but that doesn’t mean you’re not a retard.

Anonymous: I see, because the UAW didn’t reach a deal you’re happy with, that means you weren’t wrong to incorrectly berate me for saying they hadn’t reached a deal when in fact they had.

And yes, if you must know, my dog has cancer — but that doesn’t mean you’re not a retard.

Steve, you bring up an interesting situation. This is from Variety:

The WGA’s effort to ban work for fully animated features is likely to be controversial, since nearly all of the work in that area is covered through a different union — the Animation Guild, which operates as Local 839 of the Intl. Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees. The WGA’s asserting that its members can’t perform new work for feature animation, including negotiating for new work, on any project even if the producers’ deal is through the IATSE.

Steven Hulett, longtime business agent for the Animation Guild, said, “Any union can discipline their members for violations of internal rules and policy. But I can’t imagine our union attempting to prevent someone from joining and working for another union. So good luck to them.”

Under the WGA strike rules, writers with existing Animation Guild agreements are expected to be allowed to continue work, though that must be cleared with the WGA in each instance. Scribes will be banned from working on primetime network animated series already covered by the WGA.

What — did Steve Hulett think he wouldn’t be found out so easily? What a dope!

Some thoughts.

First of all, I don’t think the DVD rate would be acceptable for Internet, so “Anon Anon” is sorely mistaken if he thinks I’m somehow going to be cheerleading that position. Frankly, he or she is just sorely mistaken.

Second, saying “the DVD ship has sailed” doesn’t mean that DVDs are no longer popular consumer items. They are. It means that the residual rate for DVDs is in cement, and there is no yardage to be gained there. 20 years of banging our heads against that wall is proof.

The fight has to be about the future.

Third, this prospective “ban on animation writing” is pure nonsense. I’d like to have a labor lawyer explain to me how the WGA can restrain me from writing for an area their collective bargaining agreement expressly does not cover…and another union does cover.

Ridiculous and unenforceable, IMO.

Why is the DVD rate set in cement. It’s set in cement in a deal that will expire in three weeks. If that’s what we want and have the leverage to get, it will change. I assume you mean, “They will agree to change that rate over their dead bodies.” But maybe you don’t understand how collective bargain works.

As a viewer, I definitely think writers should get higher residuals and overall better pay for your work.

But - - and not to sound selfish - - if the strike lasts 22+ weeks, then what is the chance that my beloved programs such as Heroes, Lost, and 24 will never return for additional future seasons (or to wrap up their current storylines)?

Are we really looking at a situation where these primetime successes will NEVER return to the airwaves to produce future original episodes?

No, androgynous, I really do understand how collective bargaining works. It’s you who doesn’t get it.

The deal expires every three years. Quite right. And every three years, for the past quarter of a century, our Guild has asked for a better home video residual rate, and every three years, we not only don’t get it, but we agree to a deal that doesn’t give it.

So too has this occurred with SAG and the DGA.

In our industry, collective bargaining has always operated by pattern. Patterns are set by one union or another, and those bargaining patterns are followed. This is why SAG, the DGA and the WGA all have the same home video residual rate (essentially), even though they are three different unions.

Pattern bargaining rules the day.

Pattern bargaining says that the home video rate is 1.5-1.8% of 20% of gross, and that’s that. Of course we could change that if we had “the leverage,” but we don’t, we won’t, and so it’s absurd to talk about it as if we did.

Precedent matters. By repeatedly agreeing to a particular rate, we have not merely swallowed it, but assented to it, and that’s what bears through in pattern bargaining.

This, by the way, is why it’s essential that we set a favorable precedent for internet downloads. Set a good rate now…and let the pattern follow.

Hear hear! This is the first I’ve read of the WGA thinking they can enforce a strike order on feature animation covered by IATSE whose contract is in effect until 2009.

In fact, this whole ambiguity within the feature animation needs to work itself out. Currently some fully animated films are covered by the WGA contract. Most are covered by the Animation guild. It seems pretty random as far as I can tell. I did read somewhere that all major motion picture animated features last year were written by WGA members. Meaning some people have dual-citizenship.

AYAAW

Craig,

Nice write up in the Wall Street Journal. You blog is not the go to place for anyone who wants to know about the strike.

So how does the studio lock-out of screenwriters effect you and Ted Elliot and other influencial WGA figures recently signed development deals with the studios before the strike build up?

Seems like you’re great position to weather the strike. You can use the time to write an original, knowing it will be bought the minute the strike is over. That must give you some comfort during these tough labor times.

I’m trying to remember which studio you made those deals with? Am I wrong, or was it Fox?

And Fox is owned by… who? And who owns the Wall Street Journal these days… ? Just curious.

J. F. Lawton

So what makes internet downloads so different to DVD? I know you think its the way of the future and because its new and virgin territory there’s a chance to make a good deal, but after 20 years of accepting the dvd deal, what is going to change? If everyone was sitting back happy to accept the dvd deal when it was a very well known factor, when you knew the numbers you were talking about, why is everyone ready to jump up and do something about internet downloads when it’s such an unknown situation and no one can really predict where it’s going to go.

Craig,

We need some educated predictions to belay or ratify our fears… I hate the unknown and much prefer to follow the wisdom that is you…

Some questions to get you started:

Are mommy and daddy separating? Or will they be back to their muffled bed squeaking come Nov.1?

Did this “saber rattling” idiocracy happen prior to the ‘88 strike? I was seven at the time and all I remember is my hankering for puddin’ pops.

And if ‘88 is too distant in your memory, perhaps another reader could break down the pre-strike ‘88 build up.

J.F.,

Intriguing… the actus reus cannot be denied. But mens rea, now that is the question… one without the other a crime does not make…

Five words:

“Hal Gurnee’s Network Time Killers”

What’s up with the anemic Wikipedia entry?

AYAAW

I think you’re missing my point, Craig. I definitely think your heart is in the right place about the goals of the negotiations. I’ve read enough of you to know that we would agree, almost down the line, on what this contract should look like.

My problem is that the spokesperson for the AMPTP and the Wall Street Journal are praising your web site. And I don’t think they wipe their asses in the morning without a three-step plan. They are doing this because you play into their strategy of the moment: let’s call it: their three-step ass-wiping strategy…

Attempt to create discord between the negotiating committee and the members. Make the issue the people not the proposals. Drag the internal WGA debate into the public sphere where management can not only access it, but affect it through incognito postings.

Don’t get me wrong. I think you are thoughtful person, and like AMPTP spokeswoman, Barbara Brogliatti, I admire your “passion” and the “striking way the light hits your profile.” (I made that last quote up.) I also think you are sparking great debate. But, at this strategic moment, it is, and should be, great internal debate.

Of course this is a strategic argument and not a free speech argument so do with it what you will.

My goodness, J.F., you have cracked the case! This Murdoch-orchestrated puff piece in the Journal will drive additional traffic to Craig’s website, which will then enable Craig, Ted and their co-conspirators at Fox to—

Um…

…well…

…what was it again? Be evil together, or something?

I appreciate the way you’ve respected my intelligence by couching your theory entirely in innuendo and letting it trail off with a raised eyebrow and a pregnant pause for me to fill in on my own, but I have to confess, I’m less intelligent than you give me credit for. Could you outline your Conspiracy Org Chart in a slightly more detailed manner for us slower types? Forewarned is forearmed, don’tcha know. I’d hate to get blindsided by a sinister plot as well-orchestrated as this one surely is.

Read all about it… (But not in the Wall Street Journal) … AMPTP Troll Revealed. The poster’s “Um…” construction gives it away.

It’s the same person writing about how the studios will never cave and also above, as “Fairy tale!” slamming Craig.

If someone on this site isn’t WGA, they’re probably an industry troll. The internet exists for people who need to get a life, but people with no stake reading this blog just for fun? I don’t think so.

Craig, you say it is I who do not understand how collective bargaining works and then you provide a lecture about patterns. Well, if you want to talk about patterns, the pattern has been two decades of wimpy Guild leadership and industry-kissing McLeanism and sell-out-even-his-own-writers John Wellsism. That pattern has been broken. Finally. And if you don’t believe it, just spend an hour in a room with David Young. He means business and he knows what he is doing and he is going to kick some ass and get what he wants — or at least find out where the studio chiefs’ line really exists. As a writer and WGA member, you should be cheering David and Patric for this, but instead you are blinded by your own fog of ego. It’s time for this union to fight to the finish. That’s what it’s about and it’s about time.

“I want Fairy Tail”,

First, your name is highly offensive. Fairies are children. Freaky little children.

Second, J.F., no matter how ineloquently, points out an interesting connection and quite succinctly illuminates Craig’s and some of the other Fox writers’ hypocrisy. Their deal guarantees them cash on the other side of the strike and the strike guarantees them time to earn that cash without distraction. A win/win by the looks of it. No wonder Mr. August is keeping his mouth shut.

I’m all for survival of the fittest, but hypocrisy gives me cramps.

Next time, Fairy Tail, pick on someone your own size…. And that goes double for fairy children…

To answer Sheperd’s question, the strike would only effect writing-for-hire. If you’ve already written a spec that’s sitting on the shelf and you want to go out and package it and find financing, you’re free to do that.

Craig, I love you, I love your site, but I really wish you’d take negotiation comments over to writeraction. All members have access to that site and can discuss the issues candidly there. A forum like this where anybody can post anonymously posing as WGA is not the place to be discussing guild issues at a time like this. Take advantage of the publicity to promote your new picture; not to air your differences with the negotiating team in public.

I understand the history of the video/dvd formula, but I agree with those who think it’s a fair issue to bring to the table. When the formula was made twenty years ago, vhs costs were many times higher than today’s dvd’s. I don’t expect that we’ll get double the current rate, but it’s not unreasonable to expect that there might be some kind of counterproposal that involves an incremental increase.

None of the issues the guild has brought to the table are, to my mind, inappropriate or out of line. The committee has put forth a very reasonable proposal and hopefully the AMPTP will soon stop posturing and get down to the business of negotiating a fair deal. They know that they’re going to have to cough something up for internet downloads. What they gain by delaying that step through several months of a strike or even through several years of postponement isn’t worth the trouble and animosity it will engender with members of all guilds, and eventually the viewing public that will have to endure endless reality shows.

I love a good conspiracy theory, but I think the conspiracy theorists should get their conspiracies straight.

If Craig and Ted and John August have sweet deals that allow them to ride out the strike typing up a guaranteed-sale spec, thus losing no income, then they should be conspiring to promote a long and devastating strike, not avoid one.

It ain’t like the old days. Back then our conspiracy theorists might have been whack-jobs, but at least they a consistent logic.

Going in reverse…

Kat:

I love you too. But I don’t bother with WriterAction anymore, because talking to the same fifty people is boring and unproductive. Frankly, I have no problem with people posting anonymously in here. It’s not my choice, of course, but if that’s how they feel like expressing themselves, so be it.

It’s the ideas that are the thing.

SML & JF:

First off, I’m going to be busy shooting and then posting my movie until the end of March. Thus, if we go on strike on November 1st, I won’t be writing a spec. Not for Fox, not for anyone. So let’s dispense with that theory.

But to put a finer point on it, under the Fox deal, I’m guaranteed $300,000 for a spec. No more, no less.

My normal quote is in the seven figures.

Point being…that 300K ain’t buying my silence or assent or political beliefs or anything. Because it doesn’t matter that much to me. The point of the Fox deal is to get a movie made. That could run into serious cash.

But like I said…I can’t even think about writing that spec until this coming spring.

Beyond that, I could certainly weather a strike without taking any serious financial hit. And yet, I’m generally an advocate against a strike.

So, the calculus, for those of you into baiting people, is:

A: You’re a rich writer who is against a strike because you’re a greedy pig who wants more money now, and you’re willing to screw your fellow writer for it, or

B: You’re a rich writer who is for a strike because you’re a greedy pig who wants a bigger piece of the residuals pie, and you’re willing to screw your fellow writer for it

The important thing is to presume guilt and work your way backwards from there, right?

Androgynous:

Yeah, you really don’t understand pattern bargaining. The “pattern” isn’t a pattern like “writers keep getting screwed,” but a formalized pattern of proposals, counterproposals and accepted deal terms.

I’ve spent far more than one hour in a room with David Young. I’ve spent many many hours in a number of rooms with David Young. I have nothing against David personally. I just don’t think he’s a very good E.D. The rest of your comments devolved into jingoism. C’mon, dude, this is a labor-management negotiation, not a NASCAR race.

Gotcha:

Oh boy. Soon we’re going to resemble the AICN Talkbacks where anyone who disagrees with a particular view is labeled a “plant” and that’s that, huh?

Anon Anon:

Naturally, I cringed when I read Ms. Brogliatti’s comment, because I understood your kind of fallout would result.

Of course, there’s something positive to be sussed out here, though, right?

I’m saying their proposal is insane, and an AMPTP representative is praising my sanity.

Meaning…….?

Ya dig?

So sure, you can just knee jerk this one, but if we’re going to play the “if they say anything nice about you, then you suck” game, I think we might as well just hit the bricks now and start striking.

I’ve heard a number of people in the union make the “don’t talk publicly about any of this!” comment. To that, I say, “Gee, liberal-leaning folks, I thought a free and public exchange of ideas was a cornerstone of the Enlightenment.”

The last thing anyone should support at a time like this is a culture and atmosphere of silence and repression. The Guild is entitled to confidentiality, and they invoke it regularly (as did I when I sat on the Board).

I, as a member, am both entitled and obligated to speak my mind about my union. If they can’t handle it, then something’s gone terribly wrong over there.

What’s the bumper sticker say?

Dissent Is The Highest Form Of Patriotism?

Kat,

First, I’m non-union and was steadily working my way towards the union up until a week ago (when, abruptly, the materials on potential assignments dried up).

This negotiation affects me too. You strike and I can’t work.

And that’s why I appreciate Craig’s forum. It allows me to obtain info and voice my opinion. In fact, I wish there was more info spilling from this site.

Second, I hate this elitist BS. All informational aspects of the WGA should be available to all. Their forums should be public or at least accessible for a fee just like their registration services are public for a fee.

Third, the WGA is guilty of posturing too.

Young and Verrone don’t give two hoots about DVD resids. It’s a supposed bargaining chip just like the rollback is a supposed bargaining chip for the AMPTP. Both have no chance in hell of happening and both will be struck down as soon as the negotiators (on both sides) grow some balls and compromise.

But, as most know, ball growing is difficult for most humans, especially Americans, and that is why I fear starvation and no Santa Clause at Xmas.

Craig,

I have no doubt where your loyalties lie (with the working writer of course).

But I found J.F.’s analysis intriguing, but not necessarily incriminating.

I suppose jealousy, a little envy, and a dash of fear have forced me into calling you a hypocrite. And, perhaps, I would not have if the fox deal was not a fresh memory and your vote for the strike was a “no.”

Craig,

There’s a ton of stuff to talk about, but what stands out is you repeating that you get seven figures for writing. Is that nine millions dollars, or one million? Frankly, I don’t believe either.

I don’t know for sure, but I’m willing to bet you never got seven figures on a script writing deal. (If you did, I’m underestimating how corrupt this business is.)

I got seven figures for my original screenplay for Under Siege. (Exactcly one million. I have a copy of the check.) I got seven figures for my production rewrite on Chain Reaction (much undeserved). I’ve come close to that a couple other times.

On exactly what script and what production did you get seven figures for? Harvey gave you a million for Scary Superhero Movie 2? You got seven figures on Opus? And if you refuse to answer that, why do you keep telling people you get seven figures for writing? Why would you be afraid to talk about it? Are you confusing yourself with Ted Elliot?

I’m glad you’re rich (or say you are) and so you don’t have to worry about the problems of little writers who actually have to make a living when the WGA is acting insane. I’m sure those little people who are worried about paying their rent appreciate the advice of someone who isn’t worried about money because they are used to getting “seven figures.”

And you struck a deal before the strike to take a lot less. You’ll only get $300,000 when you deliver a new script while giving striking writers advice about the strike. And you think you might have trouble finishing a script because you’re so busy.

But it must be good to know that money is waiting for you.

Hey, here’s an idea. I’m sure there are a lot of writers that for 50 grand would write you a script during the strike and be really happy for the money. So you could net $250,000 for doing nothing. Just something to consider.

J. F. Lawton

Fairy tale,

Why don’t you ask Craig about what is happening with the “Foriegn Levies?” Aren’t there some new computers solving everything? They have been promised for years. (But don’t really appear on the WGA books.)

He always has something to say like “what me worry?” when the issue is published in the New York Time, Variety or the LA Times, but for some reason it always fades away unless someone is actively trying to expose the crime the WGA is committing.

The WGA is helping the studios steal our foreign taxes. This has been going on for at least a decade. Craig knows about it, and helps cover it up.

JF

J.F.

Damn bro. I like your style.

QUESTION…

I read in Variety today that, as part of the WGA’s “rules,” any nonmember who works during a strike will be banned from future membership in the Guild. I am well down the road on my first paid writing assignment, a movie scheduled for nationwide theatrical release in 2009. One of the express reasons I, a nonmember, got this break was that a strike possibility loomed with the WGA. The director (a DGA/WGA member) called me about the project a month ago. Now I read that unless I walk off the job — a move which I, lacking the legal protections of a striking guild, have no right to do — I will be denied future membership in the WGA. The question is:

Are they f*cking kidding?

I want membership in the Guild for all the obvious reasons, but I also can’t blow this for equally obvious reasons. Thoughts?

QUESTION…

I read in Variety today that, as part of the WGA’s “rules,” any nonmember who works during a strike will be banned from future membership in the Guild. I am well down the road on my first paid writing assignment, a movie scheduled for nationwide theatrical release in 2009. One of the express reasons I, a nonmember, got this break was that a strike possibility loomed with the WGA. The director (a DGA/WGA member) called me about the project a month ago. Now I read that unless nonmembers walk off their jobs — moves which, lacking the legal protections of a striking guild, they have no right to do — they will be denied future membership in the WGA. The question is:

Is the Guild f*cking kidding?

I want membership in the Guild for all the obvious reasons, but I also can’t blow this for equally obvious reasons. Thoughts?

Sorry for the double-post — the adrenalin spike from the day’s news must have caused a convulsive post. (-:

Craig, you are right. the more the membership is informed the better. But… having spent many hours round negotiating tables with management, I’ve learned (often the hard way) that the best deals tend to be made when the negotiators have a few tricks up their sleeves, and the opposition can only guess as to what these might be. I don’t know all the ins and outs of your dispute - but doesn’t there come a point where once a general consensus is reached (and it seems to me there’s no one in the WGA who would argue with your premise that management’s current stance is nuts)- that you just have to trust the guys battling on your behalf? Even if, as you mentioned in a previous post, you have to hold your nose while doing so? At the very least it keeps management guessing.

J.F. , I’m a huge fan, by the way, and my daddy told me never to discuss money, but it’s quite obvious Craig is a seven figure guy. The SM franchise cemented that easily. I’d guess in the 2M range and that’s just his writer’s fee. Superheroes has franchise written all over it. I say congrats, Craig, it’s good work if you can get it. And I appreciate how concerned and passionate Craig is for all writers. Even if I disagree with him from time to time. And I appreciate all the backtalk, especially your point of view, you did write one of my favorite movies of all time, and I get a little giddy whenver I see your name. I find this blog very insightful and helpful. So, please, everyone, thank you and continue…

Prediction: The rollbacks come off the table. We agree to the same DVD residuals. We gain some Reality jurisdiction and we table the internet discussion ‘til next time. Can we live with that? To avoid a strike?

“Prediction: The rollbacks come off the table. We agree to the same DVD residuals. We gain some Reality jurisdiction and we table the internet discussion ‘til next time. Can we live with that? To avoid a strike?”

We were already offered status quo plus tabling internet and turned it down, leading to the current rollbacks offer.

We’re not getting reality jurisdiction because we’ve already said the only reason we want it is to shut down television and make a strike work.

A non-WGA writer can work for a non-WGA signatory during a strike without fear of being banned from future membership because the WGA can only strike against WGA signatory companies.

J.F.

Your statemes about Craig are flirting with the boundary of actionable libel. Thus, you might want to couch your statements as nothing more than your opinion. Less, the only other defense at your disposal - if damages are to be found - is that no reasonable person could possibly interpret your statements to be an assertion of fact.

In otherwords: the J.F. is nothing but a joke defense.

lt

J.F., you are underestimating how corrupt this business is. I make seven figures per script and I haven’t had a hit in years. The studio’s are loaded with money and ALL WRITERS SHOULD MAKE SEVEN FIGURES PER SCRIPT and we should all work towards that goal. Ideally, anyway.

Is there anyone who believes that writers are compensated fairly for their work? Relative to the amounts that the studios are making from that work?

It seems to me that every three years, these negotiations are not about whether the writer will be screwed over, but the degree to which they will be screwed over. If the degree of screwage is sufficiently small, then the writers accept it like obedient little puppies and go back to their work and hope that maybe the next time they can attain fair compensation. I guess even unfair compensation is better than working in another industry.

I suspect that if we ever found out truly how much the studios make, and how much writers (and other talent) make in proportion … well, this is the reason for Hollywood accounting. Keep ‘em in the dark. Irving Thalberg and all that.

Sorry to interrupt, but I have an URGENT QUESTION.

I need to contact Harlan Ellison. It is an EMERGENCY.

Are any regular readers of this board friends with him?

If I am a WGA writer working on a (not Guild-covered) reality show, and there is a strike, will or can the WGA demand, suggest, or ask politely that I stop working and honor the strike? I saw what the Guild is saying about animation writers and I wonder if anyone expects them to ask the same of reality writers.

I can tell you from experience that many reality writers are already WGA members. Wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, the Guild ask them to stop working and support the strike? And shouldn’t the Guild even make a request to non-WGA reality writers to stop writing and support us since in theory, if we can gain reality jurisdiction it will lead to a better world for ALL reality writers?

I mean, and I’m serious if possibly naive, shouldn’t the Guild at least ASK all WGA members to not write, “produce” or even direct during a strike? We haven’t gone out in 20 years — it’s a time for solidarity. The more people who refuse to do entertaiment-related work of any kind, the more power we will have.

Also — and here’s my even dumber question — any chance the studios and networks use scabs? Would they try to keep sitcoms (all five of them) running, etc?

Craig. Just so we’re clear on my argument. I am not suggesting there is any conspiracy or collusion or any of that adorable JF nuttiness on your part. I think you do what you do here because you love the guild. I don’t even think it; I know it. And in fact you are more critical of the guild because you really care about the guild.

It’s like the mother who is most critical of her beloved son. It’s heart-warming really. Except when the son goes in for a job interview, the mom should really shut the fuck up.

Similarly, it should be pointed out that your go-to position of criticizing the guild’s negotiating stance is— here’s a stunner— undercutting the guild’s negotiating stance.

That’s why you’re getting the shout-out from the AMPTP spokeswoman.

If this were 2004, that would simply be irritating. But given that 2007 is, to my mind, the most important negotiation in the last twenty years, and possibly in the next ten— and I think you agree— I’m not sure what the up-side is here.

You argue above— “I�ve heard a number of people in the union make the �don�t talk publicly about any of this!� comment. To that, I say, �Gee, liberal-leaning folks, I thought a free and public exchange of ideas was a cornerstone of the Enlightenment.�”

Yes, but I’m not one of those left-leaning folks. I’m a pragmatist as I think you are— which is the only reason I’m writing to you. So please let’s not bring up “the enlightment” or “patriotism” or any sentence that might contain “our forefathers faught” okay?

Take it as a given you have the 1st Amendment right.

The question is whether it is smart. I clearly don’t think it is. I think it is being used by management. And I think this public area is being used by management stooges to sow dissent.

(By the way, management, just a quick note— because I know how much you love notes: when you’re trying to sound like a professional writer, use fewer exclamation points.)

Don’t give away all our secrets!!!!

I wonder if this has any relevance. It certainly sounds familiar.

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/headlines/2007nealefirstmove.html

I think that crazy dude in the last thread who accused me of anti-Semitism is Harlan Ellison.

Mike K, I think the AMPTP got ahold of that article. They’ve done a great job of anchoring their position, leaving us writers to become emotional and doubt all strategy and leverage that we did/don’t/could/won’t have. Very interesting.

——->

Wow, excellent article, Mike K. Oops. Forgot. !!!!!!!!!!!

Craig, please read it, love it, live it. Don’t just understand the strategy, be the strategy.

—————->

No, I think both sides have a pretty good job of anchoring positions. Just my observation, Mr. or Ms. Anonymous at 9:45.

Craig’s web site can be a bit deceptive because it’s not reflective of the Guild as a whole. It’s reflective of Craig’s opinions, and people’s reactions to Craig’s positions. Some of those people are actual WGA members, some are not, and some are masquerading.

But, as a whole, writers are anchored— because they know what’s at stake. Yes, Craig is trying to drag the guild off its negotiating anchor. But even Craig is only doing that because he doesn’t understand the strategy— or doesn’t agree with it.

But you’d better fuckin’ believe the Guild as a whole is anchored.

Will everyone leave Craig alone? I am not a Craig insider — hence no beige box — heck, I don’t even know the guy! But he has a website. Even if it is hurting the Guild overall IT IS HIS RIGHT TO BE HERE AND DO THIS. That is the point. It is also his right to dissent. He says he voted to authorize. He obviously wants the best deal possible. If you don’t agree with America’s leaders does that mean you don’t want what’s best for America? You know you hate it when people make those arguments against the Democrats but now you are doing the same thing to Craig. Let anyone post here — Guild writers, non-Guild writers, Counterspies, whoever — I say bring ‘em on! (Note the use of only one exclamation point because I am a WGA member. Don’t believe me? How come the contracts and residuals departments are so fucking important that they can’t even answer their own fucking phones and make us wade through thirty levels of voicemail to get a human? Satisfied?)

If Messrs Verrone or Young are reading this, how about a meeting later than 7 PM some time? Huh guys? I know your staffers have kids or porn to get home to but that is real B.S. and an insult to those of your members who work and pay your salary.

A strategic observation from way out of left field. In my day job as a career coach & resume writer, I’ve been working with a number of executives in different industries recently who are ALL bumping up against an arbitrary salary/earnings barrier that wasn’t there (from my experience) 5 years ago.

These particular executives are akin to field officers, in that they are really the ones who are driving the baseline revenues of the companies they are working for…yet, right now, they are calling me because their employers are being inordinately tight-fisted.

From my perspective based on 15 years observation, when companies properly acknowledge and compensate the people who are in the field and making them gobs of money, those people stay and continue to help the company thrive. When the companies close their fists based on some outside perception that is the thing to do - the first thing that happens is these wickedly talented executives call me (or someone like me) to figure out how to either get the fist to open up or figure out an exit plan.

I’ve seen this cycle at least two times before in the last 15 years; both times, the outcome has been that great companies that drove the industry lose the people who are underpinning their success, there is some kind of collapse within that particular industry and the industry comes crawling back 3-5 years later, trying to rebuild and offering everyone and sundry the moon to come work for them (not really ever realizing the problem is acknowledging their true troopers).

I’ve been predicting the media-entertainment industry would be swept into one of these cycles sooner or later since 2000 (when, to my mind, the powers that hold the purse strings became enamored of technology over story and lost their primary focus). I believe this industry is impacted more slowly than other industries because there are so many who want to get “in” - with so many fish swimming upstream, it is not immediately apparent that there is really a systemic problem underneath.

As an additional note, usually when this kind of “stupid behavior” on the part of the companies happens, it is because there is some outside influence that is perceived as authoritative. My first encounter with this was what I call the “hatchetmen of Harvard” when, in the early 80’s, Harvard (and other Ivy League schools) turned loose on the world a few classes of MBA graduates indoctrinated in the theology of “cut cut cut” - let good people go, thinking that was the way to increase profits (ha!).

People and their creative input is the least expensive and most valuable asset in any company. Writers don’t get paid nearly enough, mostly (I think) because the writer-norm personality tends to be introverted and non-confrontational (except when pushed too far, when they tend to try to win battles instead of wars). (As a writer, I can say this - ha! I’m trying to become more clever but in truth, if you push the right buttons on me, I’ll also behave in this terribly non-self-serving fashion - ha ha!).

So (for a possibly nut-so idea) I’d say on a brainstorm level, has anyone tried getting agents and managers to go to bat for you in all this; to become involved somehow. They ARE clever (hopefully) in the ways of business and they have vested percentage-based interest in how all of this turns out.

Otherwise, recognize that studios seem to be working off some outside authoritarian business model (that seems to be in a lot of industries right now) with an emphasis on getting their creative / field / front line people as cheaply as possible (which will truly cost them in the long run) and that they are not behaving rationally or ethically. (if they are working off the same model I’ve seen in other industries - I have some guesses as to where that model came from, but it really doesn’t matter, it is the manifest/material at hand that one must deal with).

fwiw.

————>

Thanks for the thoughtful words, Ken Tucky. Yes, will everyone please leave Craig alone? He’s a human being! You’re lucky he even performs for you, you bastards! Leave Craig-ey alone!

Okay. Got that out of my system. Just an additional thought or two, Ken. This is not about the right to speak out. Can all the people who want to argue about whether Craig has the 1st Amendment right to write what he wants raise their hands and step outside for a second so the adults can talk.

This is about whether it’s smart to do so— at this moment— in the heart of negotiations. Given that Craig wants the best deal for writers— something I sincerely believe— is it smart to be publicly playing into management’s hand in this way?

How is Craig playing into management’s hands?

Let me return to their three-step ass-wiping plan.

Attempt to create discord between the negotiating committee and the members. Make the issue the people not the proposals. Drag the internal WGA debate into the public sphere where management can not only access it, but influence it through incognito postings.

And to this, let’s add a fourth step. Attempt to drag the Guild off its anchoring position.

————>

I think that’s worth a lot, Karen. Thank you. The creative unions have definitely been a budgetary item under control for the last decade or so. And I think it’s partly for the reason you explain, and partly because creative types have lost their strategic appreciation of collective gains, and how they are a good platform for individual above-minimum negotiations.

Yes, very few working writers deal with minimums these days, but when we, as a group, make a collective gain— for example in Internet Downloads— then we, as writers, can use our individual clout to gain something else.

Regarding those making the arguments that writers are far too small a portion of their budgets for the studios to care about a strike either way: you’re right. They don’t really care about the writers. They care about the precedent. If we get a good deal for internet downloads, SAG gets a better one. And for every show that has 5 or 7 writers all season, every episode has 8 or 10 co-stars—that adds up, and quickly. If they can get us to come down on DVDs, they might be able to get the DGA and SAG to come down, or at least not go up. Writers, as always, are the low rung of the totempole without whom nothing else gets done.

I also make seven figures per script, as long as we consider the numbers after the decimal point to count as “figures”.

J.F.:

I’m sorry my success mystifies you. Yes, I got seven figures for Superhero!

I hope this doesn’t destroy your world view. It shouldn’t. I have a decent track record when I write spoof movies.

Karen, interesting observations. As far as writers hooking up with agents…It won’t happen, because agents generally consider their bread buttered by studios, networks, etc, not the people who hand them 10/15%. If asked to choose a side, agents will generally sell their clients out if it means a confrontation with management.

I read in Variety today that, as part of the WGA’s “rules,” any nonmember who works during a strike will be banned from future membership in the Guild.

Also absolutely unenforceable.

Anon Anon:

I appreciate your point. However, I believe that our current leadership is a bit, um, askew.

Public pressure is the only pressure that seems to work.

Accountability is a good thing.

Trust me when I tell you that I filter myself HEAVILY in here.

Heavily.

Hey, J.F….that oughtta send you spinning in circles! Don’t forget your foam towel.

Craig, I think you and your site are great, but you gotta stop the bullshit about your quotes. We forgave you once, but you’re pushing your credibility.

Also, I don’t believe in the conspiracy theory at all, but when I saw that mention in the WSJ, I did think that advertising this site was only going to hurt the WGA. I almost felt like I was outed to serve someone’s agenda. I can’t stretch this out into a conspiracy like J.F, but I definitely come down on the side that the article hurts us more than helps.

SML:

I struggled to understand your response at first, but luckily I have a Postmodern Adolescent Douche to Standard English Dictionary on hand.

The translation may not be exact, but it reads:

“I’m into insolence, South Park, and being dominated by women”.

Wow - I like South Park too - hey, it looks like we have something in common after all!

J.F: Do you really think Craig founded this site to help fledgling writers as part of some overarching evil scheme? He’s been nothing but ridiculously helpful to me, answering numerous questions both trivial and otherwise.

The Rupert Murdoch/Republican connection is interesting, but the fact is that the Fox Sunday night line up includes some pretty subversive satire that is at odds with Republican beliefs.

Craig: I have an idea to help prove you are not, in fact, a Sith Lord: why not have your assistant videotape you voting to authorize a strike?

Travis,

You so funny. You should write for a living.

Oh, Anonymous, FORGIVE ME AGAIN!

(sob)

I’m a talent agent for a boutique agency.

Chardkerm: how incredibly insulting and yet sadly, typical.

The AMPTP strategy has, at least in the last 15 years, been to make guilds fight to regain perceived lost ground. That the WGA is not engaging them on this residual policy is heartening. It shows recognition of a pattern.

That said, the position that projects don’t make a profit is a burden for the creative side to absorb is ridiculous. Stop paying outrageous prices with backend points for elements that do not guarantee success. If the WGA did ever decide to engage on their proposal, I would suggest they attempt to put spending controls into the hands of the guilds. After all, if residuals are based on profitability, then the guilds have a definite interest in a project becoming profitable.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with playing for the future. I agree with Craig that downloads are the most important negotiating point. Of course, the guilds could have gotten internet jurisdiction 3 years ago when every studio didn’t think there was a profit to be had there.

Are dvds a dead issue? Maybe. If the formula can be tweaked up, good. But I would not expect a doubling. And I would recommend against if it meant caving on internet. Full episodes of television on the internet is not promotion. No one I know watches a show online and then goes home and watches it again on television.

—————>

I’m glad you appreciate my point. I like when my point is appreciated. You add “However, I believe that our current leadership is a bit, um, askew.”

Yes, which is why we have elections. Once a year actually. Which is why we have Guild only forums: the informational meetings, the WriterAction website— where, yes, it’s true, writers aren’t talking about important things like how much money Craig is making, or how to get ahold of Harlan Ellison— but where hundreds of active WRITERS GUILD MEMBERS argue these exact issues daily, hourly, minutely.

It’s true, your Point of View in those venues won’t be magnified through the helpful hand of the AMPTP spokeswoman or the Wall Street Journal, but the worth of your arguments will rise and fall on your ability to persuade and move other writers, and only other writers.

To my mind, you have used the AMPTP soapbox to give your minority opinion more weight in the eyes of the public. And you have done this at the expense of actually getting what you want on the contract.

Interesting how the tone on artfulwriter became much more shrill once we heard WSJ readers might be looking on. Reminds me of the SAG members who spend ten minutes doing warmups before they speak at a Board meeting. The Guild didn’t schedule a big meeting at the Palladium this time around, and artfulwriter.com has helped fill the void. We have reached that point in the evening where the speakers are repeating themselves, members are locking into positions, and the room is beginning to thin out. I’m one of those who does view the current leadership as amateurish and Bush-like in their belligerency and tactical ineptitude. But that’s not the point I want to make. Rather, to those who criticize Craig for welcoming all points-of-view and for being so forthright himself: this is the internet. Maybe you’re so incensed because you don’t understand it and you realize you will be out of the industry in five years. Ideas emerge from the bottom-up on the internet. Bad ideas fall by the wayside, good ideas rise to the top and carry the day. Just check the political blogs sometime. I understand the impulse to circle the wagons and invoke Guild security when members criticize the leadership for playing it wrong or wonder about their motivations or game plan. But this isn’t 1960 or 1985 or even 2000. Nowadays, when so much of the membership is online all day, looking for excuses to avoid facing that next scene, people chat back and forth. A public forum is not just a reality, it is inevitable. Craig and Ted have provided a healthy one. I would feel that way even if I disagreed with them on the negotiations. So, my suggestion to those who don’t like it: have more faith in the membership and less in the leadership.

Dear Anon anon:

You don’t want Craig to dissent, yet you dissent from him. You complain that the AMPTP is thrilled with this forum as a fomentor of internal dissent, and then you dissent more than anyone else on here. If you didn’t keep posting your dissents, there would be a lot less dissension. What’s that I hear? Oh, you have a First Amendment right to dissent? Oh, please.

Is anyone posting anonymously on this site actually John Mackey from Whole Foods?

Some valid questions have been raised, today, and they’re worth zeroing in on.

• When you look at the list of writers involved in the deal with Fox, one name stands out like a sore thumb. Craig Mazin has a couple of shared credits on projects that don’t lend themselves to A-list status, but he claims to make over a million per script. That is not a normal situation. Does Pat Proft get seven figures a script? And outside of the studio that financed those movies, who would hire him for even half of that? All the other names on the list are tried and true deliverers of real, fully fleshed out screenplays that have been made into hits. So right from the starting line, the presence of Mazin on the list raises questions. He is literally not in the same league with those other writers.

That isn’t meant as an attack on Mazin. But his track record is not that of an A list writer, not by any means.

Then the WSJ article. The WSJ is a very conservative tool of big business. It long ago lost any claim it had to being a legitimate news source, and is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox, the studio where Mazin and the others have their deal.

Mazin regularly attacks the Guild leadership, and is voting for a strike, a strike the studios all want.

If we take Mazin at his word that he gets seven figures per script, then something’s going on that we’re not privvy to. A co-writer on a pair of Zucker brothers comedies, no matter how big they hit, does not get seven figures for a script. It doesn’t happen. So there’s something else at work here, and if someone were to perceive an agenda that was being controlled by pro-studio interests, they would not be a conspiracy theorist.

Lastly, I should like to say this - the odds of the Wall Street Journal writing such a glowing piece about a screenwriters’ blog that was pro-union or standing up to the studios are non-existent.

If you don’t ask yourself what’s going on here, you’re a fool. The answers may be innocent enough, but the questions must be asked, and unfortunately, Mazin has already made it very clear that his response to any such questions will be to dismiss them as though they’re just out of left field conspiracy theories.

Not to say this blog isn’t a valuable resource, but just know who your host is and where his bread is buttered.

But the “seven figures” don’t come from FOX. As noted, that deal only guarantees $300K. If anybody is paying those seven figures, it’s Weinstein Co.

I have a relatively shallow understanding of the unions and contracts, and am a writer though currently working at a new media company, so I find myself in an interesting spot given the “only thing that matters” in this negotiation.

So, just throwing this out there, to further emphasize why scrapping the current residual plan is crazy. Most people talk about Internet as a distribution platform (movie/tv show gets syndicated, gets to sell DVDs, gets international distribution, and now Internet). But it is also another entertainment platform itself for original content (we watch original stuff made for theaters, we watch original stuff made for TV, and we watch original stuff made for the Internet). Which means it’s not out of the realm of possibility that Internet content can be repurposed for distribution via, say, DVD. Who’s to say someday LonelyGirl or The Landlord won’t come out on DVD? Ok, those might not, but you see where I’m going. If we take a step back with the current residual structure, and make apparent gains with Internet, yet make concessions on the old stuff, we may get screwed, yet again. It’s the old give-you-a-good-deal-on-the-new-car-but-screw-you-on-the-trade-in deal.

BRIAN MCCABE: “I’m a talent agent for a boutique agency. Chardkerm: how incredibly insulting and yet sadly, typical.”

Brian, I didn’t know it was possible for an agent to be insulted. And maybe there’s a reason behind why it’s typical.

But seriously, folks, I twice used the word “generally” when describing typical agents’ behavior. Not singling you out. You probably know the type of whom I speak. Go with God, Brian McCabe.

“Lastly, I should like to say this - the odds of the Wall Street Journal writing such a glowing piece about a screenwriters’ blog that was pro-union or standing up to the studios are non-existent.

If you don’t ask yourself what’s going on here, you’re a fool.”

Posted by: The Diggem Frog at October 11, 2007 1:29 PM

Sorry, The Diggem Frog, but you’re the fool. Anyone remotely familiar with journalism knows the WSJ news pages are entirely different from the editorial pages. Didn’t you read any of the quotes from reporters when Murdoch was trying to acquire it? I know several reporters there, and they are as liberal-Democrat as it comes. You’re one of those people who connects dots that shouldn’t be connected, then covers it over with character assassination. On this public website all you are doing is reinforcing the image of writers as irrational, angry, and pointless to deal with. Try making an intelligent point or two if you want to be taken seriously in the discourse.

—————->

Oh, Ken, there you are. Yes, I dissent from Craig. And it’s a bad time to dissent from Craig because Craig is in deep negotiations with management to be even more Craig. Nick Counter wanted to give in to Craig’s demands to be more Craig, but then he saw my dissent on here, and he decided, no, Craig couldn’t be any more Craig. In fact, he wanted a rollback on Craig. And let’s acknowledge, we all lose if that happens. I have been happily admonished.

The Diggem Frog - you say the strike is something the studios all want?! Why on earth would the studios want a strike? What business in the world wants a labor walk out? Not GM, not MLB, not any employer who relies on its employees to make money. That’s crazy talk!! They may be willing to endure a strike to not give in to terms they deem unacceptable, but I think that’s hardly the case here. They’ve employed basic negotiation tactic - present a proposal they know we’d be idiots to accept. But, if we don’t give it the time of day, they can put out PR saying we’re not negotiating in good faith. If we do give it time of day, they’ve sent us down a path to waste our time, and finally they’ll give us the “big concession” and take it off the table like they’re the good guys, when it was never a serious option in the first place. The hope is, we’ll feel like we won a mini-battle, and then when it comes to Internet, they’ll give the old, “Wait a minute, we already gave you that big one on the residuals revamp, and now you want to screw us on internet too? You’re robbing me blind!” schtick.

And, oh by the way, there are TONS of writers making close to seven figures who are considered A-list by the studios who you would probably have never hear of. They may only have one or two major credits to their name, if that. But they’ve done plenty of uncredited work, and the studios are willing to pay a premium because they know they can deliver on time, aren’t crazy, and can deliver quality in a pinch. M. Night, for example, was already known in Hollywood before The Sixth Sense for re-writes he’d done, uncredited. But most of us only know him from The Sixth Sense on.

Is “Anon anon” a Guild staffer in the organizing department?

Diggem wrote: <>

Diggem — this is simply not true. I have worked for Ny Times and Washington Post and believe me, the poeple there, jealously, see the Journal as a legitimate source of news. Who matches them on financial news? FT? Reuters? Nobody. Liberals will tell you their editorial page is insane and conservatives will tell you they’re heroes, but you are not talking about their editorial page, you are talking about them as a news source, and you are just dead wrong.

You imply (or more) that Craig got hundreds of thousands of extra dollars because he runs a wga discussion forum that divereges from the leadership’s position. That is laughably idiotic of you to think that. Maybe they’re glad it exists, maybe it’s why the Journal wrote the story, but that much money for this? Nah.

You think the stuidos want a strike? Why? Wouldn’t they rather us cave and just take three percent bumps again? That’s what I imagine. They are putting a bogus proposal on the table to gauge our resolve. Do you think they want a strike to break the union once and for all — to totall destroy the union and make it go away? I think as long as its docile and takes the small bumps, it serves the studios’ purposes. You think they want to start administering health care on a piecemeal basis? I don’t think so. They like having us be their back office.

Overall, your post is silly, specious and stupid.

—————->

No. But thanks for playing.

Chardkerm:

Well, if you feel that way about your agent, you don’t have the right person.

Professionals in this business count on their agent to get the best possible deal for them. Yet, once every three years (on possibly the most important deal that can be negotiated), agents suddenly can’t be trusted. We negotiate for a living. You guys write, act, direct, whatever for a living. By all means, dismiss us as an option.

And God won’t walk with me. I’m an agent ferchrissakes!

Anon #11 wrote: <>

No, because then he or she would be holding a 3:00 meeting for writers so they could leave the office at 5 and get home for dinner with their kids.

Did you ever try to call someone at the Guild, especially the staff lawyers? They get in at 10:30 to 11, and leave between 4 and 5. Oh, and of course they hate writers.

Let’s not be childish about Craig’s right to speak in the public square. This is America. Frankly I’m appalled that writers, of all people, would want to censure speech (via peer pressure or otherwise).

I’ve participated in the discussion at WriterAction and I’m not hearing the quality and diversity of opinions that should surround a potential strike. The consensus seems to be that we must be willing to strike in order to get what we deserve. And yet, we haven’t gotten far enough along in the negotiation process for this to be the tenor of the discussion.

A mature, reasoned discussion has to happen somewhere. The WSJ is as good a place as any. Great strides are made in secret. They are made, as often as not, in the public square. We must be willing to talk openly, in a reasonsed voice, about real solutions.

Yes, AMPTP’s initial position was ridiculous, and they no doubt knew that. The WGA also asked for things that we haven’t a rat’s chance in hell of getting. We will, both of us, have to compromise - because that’s what negotiations are. We jumped the gun by putting the strike issue on the table before we attempted to negotiate in good faith. And the sign of a good faith negotiaton is the willingness to take something off the table in exchange for something you want more. It doesn’t seem that either side has done that to date, which leaves me wondering how we got here with a potential strike looming as early as Nov. 1.

A final point. Craig’s opposition to a strike is an act of solidarity with we the less prosperous membership of the Guild. We stand to lose more from a strike than he ever could. I understand the sentiment, voiced so often at WA, that we should be willing to fight for what we deserve. It’s just, I think we sounded the clarion call too soon.

Paula said: We jumped the gun by putting the strike issue on the table before we attempted to negotiate in good faith.

No we didn’t — they would not negotiate in good faith without us putting the strike on the table. In fact, we are now moving to put it on the table and they are still not interested in a good-faith negotiation. Don’t Paula and all you other idiotic members get it — they will not negotiate in good faith until we strike. They have had 20 years of us threatening to walk and then we cave, six years ago worst of all. They think we are wimps and up until this year they have been absolutely right. Didn’t help that we had one of them as our E.D. but whatever. It’s true that a long strike would hurt them but on a one day or Chrysler style six-hour strike hurt them? No. So they will wait to see if we even have the guts to strike before they do anything reasonable at all. The reason that we are in this position at all is people like you Paula. It is members like you who have made us a soft laughingstock of a union.

Ok, one more and I’m going to take a break from all this posting. Unfortunately, the studios got the first-mover advantage in the Ridiculous Laughable Proposals department. I think we did the right thing by refusing to engage in that discussion. But I agree with Craig that at this point, countering with our own Ridiculous Laughable Proposal is not the right answer, it’s just saying, “two can play at that game”. I thought, despite the studios best PR efforts, they generally came across as lame in trying to push their proposal as a genuine offer.

Also, back to another question - if a non-union writer works for a studio during the strike, they cannot be blackballed from the union? I thought when the NBA and MLB went on strike, that they also threatened non-union minor league players with blackballing if they crossed the picket line.

Not really addressing much of anything at this point, have to finish a cut by the end of the day. But I just wanted to say:

“Gotcha:

Oh boy. Soon we’re going to resemble the AICN Talkbacks where anyone who disagrees with a particular view is labeled a “plant” and that’s that, huh?”

Well, it worked for Hilary.

What — did Steve Hulett think he wouldn’t be found out so easily? What a dope!

A dope? Probably. But I assumed the article would be out there.

And Craig answered my question higher up: Unenforceable.

—————>

Paula, let’s take it as a given that Craig has the 1st Amendment right to say what he wants here. In fact, let me create a little macro for you. Whenever you see * that will mean “Craig Mazin has the right to say whatever he wants here.” And when you see this— ###— that will mean “this is America.” When you see this— ^^^— that will mean “our forefathers fought and Paul Revere rode for these rights we hold sacred.” Okay? Here goes.

Given that *, it is my opinion that what Craig is doing here is not smart. And even though ###, when you are in the thick of negotiations, and the other negotiators are shooting shout-outs your way— as the AMPTP spokeswoman did in the recent Wall Street Journal piece— you just might question whether you are being used. Yes, I know that ^^^ and it’s true that ###, and even though that *, I believe this still holds.

I’m not arguing for an all-encompassing world view here, Paula. I’m arguing for what is strategically smart for the moment. But of course I think Craig knows this. He knows negotiations involve hard-nosed tactics. And I think he also guiltily suspects he’s being used. But, hey, ###, so I might be wrong.

“Paula said: We jumped the gun by putting the strike issue on the table before we attempted to negotiate in good faith.

No we didn’t — they would not negotiate in good faith without us putting the strike on the table. In fact, we are now moving to put it on the table and they are still not interested in a good-faith negotiation. Don’t Paula and all you other idiotic members get it — they will not negotiate in good faith until we strike. They have had 20 years of us threatening to walk and then we cave, six years ago worst of all. They think we are wimps and up until this year they have been absolutely right. Didn’t help that we had one of them as our E.D. but whatever. It’s true that a long strike would hurt them but on a one day or Chrysler style six-hour strike hurt them? No. So they will wait to see if we even have the guts to strike before they do anything reasonable at all. The reason that we are in this position at all is people like you Paula. It is members like you who have made us a soft laughingstock of a union.

Posted by: member at October 11, 2007 2:33 PM”

Yikes. We’re in even bigger trouble than I thought. Dick Cheney has joined the Writers Guild!

Can anyone explain how the proposed formulas for internet residuals function? This seems like a tricky thing to measure given the variety of ways content is displayed and sold online. Thx.

The WGA Strike Rules have now been posted in PDF:

http://www.wga.org/contract_07/StrikeRules.pdf

——————>

I share your “Yikes.” Negotiate smart. One shouldn’t negotiate with swaggering bravado. That link way back up there by Mike K. was a good example of how to negotiate smart.

For the record, Anonymous #15’s real name is Neville Chamberlain.

Smooth negotiating there, member. Always best to compare the other side with Hitler.

Yeah, Anon anon and Anon 15, we should do it the way we’ve done it in the past. After all, it got us a great DVD deal and all of basic cable. You are an embarrassment to our union, and to testicles in general.

So how does the studio lock-out of screenwriters effect you and Ted Elliot and other influencial WGA figures recently signed development deals with the studios before the strike build up?

Studios were stockpiling before negotiations began, and the AMPTP put its “burn-the-town-down” proposal on the table on the first day of negations. It was in the wake of that we went and pitched our deal around town, because everyone was feeling that a strike was a dead certainty. Given the track records of the writers involved, in the event of a long work stoppage, the studio that made the deal would likely have a couple of screenplays it could send out to actors and directors almost immediately after the strike ended, giving them a jump on the competition for the same talent.

Seems like you’re great position to weather the strike. You can use the time to write an original, knowing it will be bought the minute the strike is over.

Actually, we don’t know that — so I guess its a good thing none of this need this deal to “weather the strike,” huh? The Fox deal amounts to a free first-look; if they don’t want the spec, then there’s no payment. So, just like anyone else, whether something any of us writes on spec gets bought will depend on the content of the screenplay. And, even in the event Fox does buy it,the payment is a fraction is what Terry and I — or any of the writers in the deal — could make on an assignment (which, you know, there will be lots of those open after the strike) or by putting a spec on the open market.

And, you know, J.F., there was nothing stopping you, or anyone else, from going out to try to make a similar deal with studios. Maybe you couldn’t have gotten one, but there’s a lot of other writers in town who could have. In fact, are you sure there’s not a lot of writers in town who did, but did not have their deals publicized in Variety?

And the reason for the WSJ piece should be obvious: is there another blog written by a WGA member, working writer and former Board member that is talking about what is currently the primary business issue in the industry? Or just by a WGA member and working writer? Or just by a WGA member? Plenty of fun anecdotes and good advice about the craft of writing, but there’s not even a militant, cannons-at-the-ready-and-fire-at-will blog out there I can find. Roger Simon used to kick it hard on WGA issues, but I don’t think he’s even mentioned the negotiations. Mark Evanier weighs in from time-to-time, but his is more catch-all blog. And you haven’t bothered to update your blog in months.

Maybe if there was competition to The Artful Writer, it wouldn’t make it so easy to single The Artful Writer as the “only game in town” for public discussions of WGA issues.

• Ted

“You are an embarrassment to our union, and to testicles in general.

Posted by: member at October 11, 2007 3:32 PM”

Honestly, you can’t make this up. .

Mr. McCabe — What was I negotiating?

Continued success at “An Insignificant Talent Agency.”

Here’s a missive I just received from one of Craig’s other unions — the IATSE:

“It was reported today in Variety that the WGAw is considering discipline against members who work under IATSE Animation Guild agreements…

“If the WGAw follows through with this threat, the IATSE is prepared to take legal action against the individuals and institutions involved.”

This is the IA’s statement, not The Animation Guild’s.

Anyone know — is it true that Patric and David are having fruitful talks with DGA and that is what has led to decision to seek strike authorization now?

I take it, member, you are not a comedy writer. Zingers quite clearly not your forte.

But, hey, thanks for contributing to the conversation in such a knee-jerk, hyperbolic way. I now value your position.

“Anyone know — is it true that Patric and David are having fruitful talks with DGA and that is what has led to decision to seek strike authorization now?

Posted by: Vito Scotti at October 11, 2007 3:55 PM”

Yes, that is true. Tommy Short is also letting all animation writers join the WGA, and Nick Counter is replacing Mona Mangan at WGAEast.

“Zingers” — good agent word!

Craig, Ted - Excellent site and very welcome for a non-WGA member. I read through most of the posts and, as colorful as many of them are, they were just too voluminous to get to every one.

That being said, what is the conventional wisdom about how and if SAG and the DGA will factor into the negotiations?

Also, you are dead-on about the digital distribution battle. It represents the biggest change in the history of television, and if the WGA misses its chance, writers will be burdened with the consequences for a very long time.

Now that I’ve found you, I’ll be checking in regularly. Thanks.

“Now that I’ve found you, I’ll be checking in regularly. Thanks.

Posted by: e-merge at October 11, 2007 4:05 PM”

e-merge: Welcome. Nice to have you. If you’re short of time, skip everything written by “member.”

Because member make fun of anon 15.

Sorry Craig. You can’t write on your film at all. No A through H loophole.

On the bright side, this could shut down all the other writer/director films in the pipeline. That could add to our leverage.

Question for Craig/Ted:

I’m a writer in the UK (non-WGA), and I have the chance to do a rewrite for an indie, non-WGA company based in L.A. Am I okay to do this if the strike happens? I know the strike only covers WGA companies, but these situations sometimes have unwritten rules - is it bad form to do this?

To all the conspiracy theorists who have concluded - minds unclouded by evidence - that AW is a studio-backed conspiracy, you've been had.  AW is, in fact, a GUILD-BACKED conspiracy!

Think about it: the major question on the minds of the studio heads right now is how far the Negotiating Committee will go to better the residuals formula.  If they think the guild will settle for cosmetic improvements, then that's all they will offer.  

On the other hand, if they think the WGA leadership is crazier than a shithouse rat, then suddenly it makes sense to take any deal you can make with anyone - WGA or DGA - by 10/31.

So, if the perception of craziness is actually helpful, what advances the cause better than a former board member calling current management a pack of raving lunatics in public?  It's the same tactic Kissinger used in China: "you better cut a deal with me, because Nixon is psycho".  After all, a bluff only works if the other guy doesn't think you're bluffing.

Nice try, Craig, but you've been found out.  Despite all your rhetoric, you're actually in CAHOOTS with the Guild (also the Jews, the Masons, possibly the centaurs).  No matter how much you protest, I see this blog for what it is: a cynical and shameless ploy to advance the interests of screenwriters.

I don’t know about you guys, but if McCabe were my agent, I’d want him on the phone getting me work, not spending all day surfing the web.

Thank you, Craig, for weighing in on my question [re nonmembers working during a strike]. Thanks also to MHB and Mike.

Something further on the topic… I read the following on another forum today:

“Regarding non-Guild members who scab — the position of the Guild is that if you do this, you will never be permitted to join the guild as long as you live, which certainly carries a significant down-side.

However, last time around — when we lost big time, the Producers, since all of those scabs had been of very great use to them, simply said to the WGA — oh, you know all of those writers who were scabbing and who you don’t want to let into the guild — we want you to grant them all amnesty.

And since we had essentially caved in on everything else, we weren’t going to stay out on that issue. So the Guild did.

I don’t know if that’s public knowledge, or has been publicly acknowledged, but that’s what happened.

Now, were we to win the strike, we’d be in a position to say — screw the scabs. They’re out.”

I have no way of knowing whether this is true, but figured I’d re-post it here for anyone interested in the topic.

�It was reported today in Variety that the WGAw is considering discipline against members who work under IATSE Animation Guild agreements�

�If the WGAw follows through with this threat, the IATSE is prepared to take legal action against the individuals and institutions involved.�

This is the IA�s statement, not The Animation Guild�s.

////////////

According to my understanding of the strike rules, animation writers who are WGA members will be allowed to complete assignments currently contracted for, but will not be permitted to enter into new agreements, or option or sell literary material for animation during the strike.

The IA cannot sue anyone for NOT entering into a contract, or for NOT optioning or selling literary material.

Hi, Brian McCabe.

Hey, Greg. What do you think? Do i suck as an agent? It’s like no one ever heard of multi-tasking. Btw, I’m sending an appt over to you guys for Jana for tomorrow.

I’ve been following the debates as well as I can too. My comments are from an outsider’s perspective still learning about this whole Hollywood mess. So bear with me.

What I don’t understand is how writers can be treated as second-class citizens (if that) in a medium that depends so much on them. Somehow over the decades, everyone has bought into the lie that the writer doesn’t matter much. Yet everyone relies on their work to do their job? I think that great writers should be treated like gods. Someone made a comment about Vince Vaughn and Dodgeball IV, how he makes more money in a single movie than what all the writers are now fighting for collectively (true or not true?). IMDBPro says the guy pocketed $20 million for “Fred Claus.” No offense to Vince, I like his work and he’s is very good at what he does. But that pisses me off as an American, let alone as someone wanting to work in the business. I wonder if $20 million dollars means the same to people used to working in Hollywood as it does to the rest of us in the real world? Here’s the other thing: writers imagine other worlds full of heroes, mythic journeys, epic battles against the enemy, persevering against all odds, etc, etc, etc. But why then is it the case that writers are too damn frightened to stand up for themselves? What is so hard to understand here? You can’t complain that the greedy corporate bastards are ripping you off if you do nothing about it! Also, should a war be fought over principles or solely practicalities? When I heard about the proposal to increase the DVD residual from 4 cents to 8 cents, my reaction was “Why the hell is it only 4 cents? It should be 2 or 3 bucks on a 15 dollar DVD!”

However, last time around � when we lost big time, the Producers, since all of those scabs had been of very great use to them, simply said to the WGA � oh, you know all of those writers who were scabbing and who you don�t want to let into the guild � we want you to grant them all amnesty.

Amnesty is kind of standard at the end of strikes. Nothing earth-shaking there.

As far as I know, they’re almost always granted.

And courts often throw out union-imposed fines on members.

Here’s something no one has mentioned.

If WGAw were to go on strike, than not only should WGAw writers who are directing films not be writing on them (as already issued in the strike rules,) but they should not be crossing the picket line to work for the signatories that are being struck.

That means directors like Craig shouldn’t be crossing the pick line, because, de facto, that supports the AMPTA.

I’m sure there is some convoluted technical argument against that, but that argument doesn’t matter. If support a strike you don’t cross the picket line. Period.

——————>

No, Mr. or Ms. Anonymous at 5:33 PM. All our creative contracts require that we not honor the strikes of the other creative unions— as long as our contracts are still in effect. So if Craig did NOT cross any potential WGA picket line, he would be in breach of his contract and probably sued.

Brooks, You won’t find much disagreement here. Good movies do not happen without good writing, period.

The problem is that studios have mastered the art of making money off of bad movies. No matter how awful a film is, as long as you can get 5 million people to go see it on opening weekend, you’ll make money. And from a first- weekend marketing standpoint, a great script just isn’t nearly as valuable as, say, throwing Vince Vaughn’s face on a poster.

Plus, there are tons and tons of writers. So why bother treating the writer you have well when you know you can always go find a new one?
Conversely, there are only six studios, so a writer can only burn so many bridges before he runs himself right out the industry.

Mr. McCabe: Anyone who can spin goofing off and being lazy as “multi-tasking” is okay in my book — you have won me over.

“Hey, Greg. What do you think? Do i suck as an agent? It’s like no one ever heard of multi-tasking.”

No, you don’t suck. As for multi-tasking, I’d have to ask the question right back: how come so many writers/wannabe writers are posting on blogs instead of writing specs and giving pitches?

Writers have been taking it in the backside for so long that it would take something monumental to reverse the trend. But it’s a trend worth reversing, if people would just figure out how to do it and have the courage to stand up.

“Regarding non-Guild members who scab — the position of the Guild is that if you do this, you will never be permitted to join the guild as long as you live, which certainly carries a significant down-side.”

Does anyone know what this significant downside would be?

Anonymous #15 wrote “…they would not negotiate in good faith without us putting the strike on the table.”

Really (honest question)? Did we offer to take something off the table in exchange for getting something more valuable in return? If so, what? …And what happened next?

What’s the evidence for the position that they would not negotiate in good faith? Maybe I’m ignorant of some of the facts, so enlighten me.

Anonymous #15 also wrote: “Don’t Paula and all you other idiotic members get it — they will not negotiate in good faith until we strike.”

Thanks for the ad hominem, but dude, really? How ‘bout you marshall some FACTS in support of your argument - or at the very least, give me the rest of your argument. “They will not negotiate in good faith until we strike and the reason I know (or believe this) is because…”

All kidding aside, this is the most important issue to face the industry in the 17 years I’ve been doing this. Keeping track of what’s going on and what people are talking about is also part of the job. I don’t blame anyone for spending time here trying to figure out what’s going to happen next.

I could have hidden behind a sobriquet. I chose not to. These are my opinions. These are my ideas. I own up to them.

This is not a writer’s issue. The strike will not just affect writers. This is an industry problem. Everyone in the industry should be pitching in to help. The Us/Them mentality does not help. IMO, it hinders.

I state that “Paula” is not a WGA member at all but is a studio/network shill. NO writer is so stupid as to think that we should react to the AMPTP’s magnanimous “no more residuals” proposal by removing something from our list of demands. They don’t expect us to react that way to them flipping us the bird like that and if we did they’d just laugh and know they don’t have to give us a damn thing at all. And yet this is the course of action that “Paula” suggests for us. Further proof of her shilldom can be found in her AMPTP-like requests for “facts.” Okay, “Paula” — this is like me telling everyone here that you’re really an 89 year old prostitute who has serviced 927 felons and then making you present the “facts” to show that’s not true. But hey, if that’s what you think you need to do, I’ll be here.

And this from the strike authorization letter: “We are writing to request that WGA members vote to authorize the WGA West Board and the WGA East Council to call a strike in the event that a fair and reasonable contract cannot be negotiated with the networks and studios.”

That was Oct 1. This is Oct. 11. Are we already sure, ten short days (and 8 business days) later that “a fair and reasonable contract cannot be negotiated,” that they “will not negotiate in good faith until we strike?” Don’t we need to go a few more rounds in the boxing ring before we jump to that conclusion?

The strike authorization says of the Companies, “they have left the rollbacks on the table and refuse to address the significant issues that must be resolved in these negotiations.” Obviously the rollbacks are absurd and must come off the table, but what are we willing to take off the table?

I want to know under what conditions our leadership would deem a strike necessary and appropriate. They tell us (again in the strike authorization letter) that “[we] assure you that we will exercise this responsibility [deciding whether to strike] with the fullest degree of prudence and restraint. I need to know that their definition of prudence and restraint is the same as mine.
Is it fair Internet download rate or we strike? Is it fair Internet download rate plus new DVD formula plus expanded jurisdiction or we strike? What exactly? The answer matters - at least to me.

member,

Click on Paula’s name to read her super-secret network shill blog.

And speaking as someone who agrees with you about the AMPTP’s willingness to bargain in good faith minus the threat of a strike: Please, pretty please, stop being on our side. Hurling personal accusations at someone to avoid having to answer a fairly basic question about why you hold the opinions you hold is usually a pretty clear sign that you haven’t thought it through, or are simply unable to. If you can’t argue the case (hint: it’s not difficult), stop screaming the conclusion at the top of your lungs anyway as if it had been revealed to you in a vision by God himself. That just makes us all of us who’ve arrived at the same conclusion under our own power look like assholes.

But of course, since I’m challenging you, I must be a studio plant too….

Member,

You sure do jump to a lot of unfounded conclusions. Since you bring up the rollbacks, our leadership says re: the rollbacks: “Are the Companies serious about this proposal? They can’t be.” My sentiments exactly. S

Obviously I’m not suggesting we agree to the rollbacks and also take something else off the table. What I’m suggesting is that we (1) say no to the rollbacks (as we’ve already done) and (2) put a reasonable offer for compromise on the table that involves them ceding the rollback issue AND agreeing to some of our demands, but not all of them, since no one gets all their demands met in a negotiation.

Maybe, just maybe if you listened to what she was asking, you’d understand. She did not say to take the deal offered. She isn’t even referencing it. She is talking about the WGA proposal.

Paula, I don’t think either side is negotiating in good faith. Counter’s proposal is ridiculous, but hardly unforseen. It’s been his modus operandi for over a decade. The WGA, on the other hand, wants to create a whole new set of residuals, outside of convincing the other side to actually do this, and to date has allowed what 10 days of actually negotiation. By starting on the date they did, the WGA gave up on getting what they wanted through standard negotiations. The belief (and I’m not saying it’s not correct) is that you can’t get new medium residuals without the threat of a strike.

Right now, both sides are positioning themselves for the next stage. AMPTP is counting on being able to make a deal with the DGA the eviscerates the WGA’s demands and eventually SAG’s.

And hey, member, anytime your willing to put a name to your nonsense, feel free. You’re the only one here causing problems, all while adding nothing to the debate. If anyone looks like a shill, it’s you.

p.s. Working Stiff, i’m still here at work.

Personally, I kinda think that a requirement that the lower third of the TV screen be used to point out product placement in the middle of shows is almost as absurd as getting rid of residual payments.

Perhaps we can offer that up for sacrifice in exchange for taking the residual rollback off the table.

I’m not against anonymous comments, but I wish people would be more creative in their handles. That’s where Typepad and the like come in handy. Trying to keep all these “anons” and “members” straight is a pain. If this little blog really wants to grow, something for the management to consider.

Paula, In your posts, you state that the rollbacks are “absurd”, yet you want the writer’s to offer up a “reasonable offer to compromise”. Huh? What? Please read your posts back to yourself. They really make no sense.

Better?

According to the statements at wga.org and amptp.org, the past couple days of negotiations has been mostly devoted to arguing about which organization’s financial data about the impact of home video residuals is correct / relevant.

Anyone seen the actual numbers that the WGA and AMPTP worked up on this issue? I looked around online for them but couldn’t find anything.

“Paula, In your posts, you state that the rollbacks are “absurd”, yet you want the writer’s to offer up a “reasonable offer to compromise”. Huh? What? Please read your posts back to yourself. They really make no sense.”

It makes sense.

Instead of just saying “There’s no way. We’re going to strike unless/until you take that off the table.”, we say “In exchange for taking that ridiculous residuals rollback off the table, we will take our ridiculous product placement proposal off the table.”

I don’t know if I agree or if it would even make any difference, but obviously if each side just keeps saying “Well, these are our demands” without even attempting to negotiate a tit-for-tat, you give up something and I’ll give up something, then all we end up with is a long strike or, potentially worse, the DGA coming in and undercutting us.

Do you really think the product placement proposal will remove the rollbacks? Really?

No. I don’t, but negotiations are about offers and counteroffers. So far, I’ve not seen either side do anything but dig in to their respective position and refuse to budge even a millimeter.

As long as we’re accusing them of not negotiating, we might want to take a second and possibly at least go through the motions like we’re interested in negotiating. All we seem to be doing is posturing in response to their posturing. That’s practically guaranteeing that we’re going to strike.

Even with that, I think a strike would be a very real and probably very likely possibility. But I’d personally like to at least give the not striking thing a try first.

And Paula, for the record, here’s why I think the AMPTP did not come to the table with the intention of bargaining in good faith:

Over the last three years, every public statement and action by the studios and networks relating in any way to online streaming or downloading has been to the detriment and diminution of writers’ participation and compensation. “Promotionally” broadcasting entire TV episodes with no additional compensation for the writers, steering online work to non-union workers, incessantly claiming that online anything is so intrinsically different from all previous business models that none of the rules we’ve always lived by can possibly apply to it, etc., etc. And if they succeed in defining the online arena as something completely new and different, with an entirely different (and need I add, less favorable) compensation structure, then in a few years, they will have redefined virtually our entire industry. Because that’s where it’s all moving eventually, and they damned well know it.

People frequently describe our leadership as hungry for a war. Well, I’ve had the feeling for some time that management wasn’t gearing up for a war, exactly, but more of a bloodless coup. And I had become increasingly frustrated over the past couple months that we appeared to be following their schedule, the scenario conventional wisdom insisted would come to pass until last week’s announcement: We work past our contract expiration, wait to strike with SAG next year, and the DGA gets to define the terms for the entire industry before that ever happens. I was thrilled by the news of the strike authorization vote because it told me that we weren’t going to roll over and be “managed” as obligingly and easily as everyone had assumed we would, right up until that moment. (See Craig’s posting from a day or two before the strike vote was announced, for instance.)

Remember ten days ago, when the general consensus was that we barely even mattered? That we weren’t worth negotiating seriously with in the first place, because DGA was the only party to the negotiations that was really going to have any sway in the end?

Suddenly, people are taking us seriously. It’s a start.

This isn’t to say the negotiations couldn’t still be fumbled horribly, but I’m willing to wait and see how I feel about that three weeks from now. (And I absolutely do believe—unlike some here—that we’re going to see some genuine bargaining going on between now and then. If I’m wrong about that, I’ll be the first to cop to it when the time comes. But I don’t think the situation is as dire (yet) as people are claiming. Everyone seems to assume the worst of our leadership, but what they proved to me last week was that they had at least one surprise up their sleeves…so who’s to say it was the last or only one? Maybe—just maybe—they actually know what they’re doing, and why they’re doing it, and have perhaps even devoted some thought and discussion to which moment might be most advantageous to take any given action—including when to go into the haggling phase of the game. Stranger things have happened….)

Oops—it’s no fun to be anonymous if you don’t add ‘P’….

Above was me, if anyone is still trying to keep all us “Anonymouses” straight.

Paula - we should not concede anything for them to remove their proposal. It would be absolutely foolish. It would fall right into their strategy.

For example, if you lived in NY, and I lived in LA, and we were trying to figure out somewhere mutually beneficial to meet up. Before you have a chance to open your mouth, I say, “let’s meet in Catalina”. It’s ridiculous, cause it’s even further west than LA, so you tell me, “That’s a stupid offer, I’m not even going to dignify that with a response”. Then I tell all my friends, “Paula is being disrespectful, she won’t even discuss or tell me why Catalina doesn’t make sense”.

Now, what you’re currently suggesting is essentially going back to me and saying, “OK, drop this whole Catalina thing, and just to show you my good faith, I’ll buy your plane ticket to wherever we decide to go, OK? So now can we talk like civilized human beings?” And I’ll go, “OK, fine. So let’s meet in Vegas instead, and you buy my ticket”.

“DEAL!”

Doesn’t make much sense, does it? That’s their whole strategy - to put something ridiculous out there, make us fight to take it off, and we’ll feel like we’ve gained some ground and we’ll be more open to other concessions. We’d be fools to accept that because it’s not even a reasonable starting point, and that’s why people are reacting so vocally to your suggestions.

Of course, to extend this example, I think what Craig would like the WGA to say is, “Drop the Catalina thing, that’s retarded. Now let’s start talking about a place that really makes sense. Maybe Chicago? Kansas City?”

Instead the WGA leadership has come back and said, “Catalina? Are you retarded? OK, OUR offer is to meet in England. How do you like them apples?”

Paula, I’m sorry. “Anonymous P.” is right and I am wrong. I shouldn’t have doubted you and for that I apologize. Your questions deserve an answer.

Paula, the AMPTP came to the first negotiating session with two proposals. One was to keep things basically the way they are now save a few small increases while putting off the issue of internet downloads for a few years while a “study” was done to try to determine a business model and assess its potential profitability. Then they said, If you don’t agree to that, then THIS is the deal we are offering you, and they handed over a lengthy proposal which does away with residuals unless a particular movie or television program is profitable. As I’m sure you know, under Hollywood accounting methods, almost nothing is ever conceded to be profitable. In other words, this proposal was a big F You to the Guild. The message was: accept our study group, or you will be much worse off the next three years then you were the previous three because you will never get a residual again.

I — and most Guild members — interpreted the no-residuals proposal as a non-serious offer. They knew we would never agree to that and it was not put forward for us to agree to. It wasn’t even a severe opening negotiating position, it was just them showing us how tough they are and how they have contempt for us based on our spineless approach to negotiations in the past.

But this time is different. Patric Verrone was elected by members who knew that he was saying things needed to change and we needed to stop getting pushed around. Patric promoted David Young to run the Guild and David’s experience comes from leading unions in the construction trade. I know that Craig doesn’t think David is the right person to lead us but David is the first person in the 15 years I’ve been a WGA member who seems to me like a leader who is neither too cozy with the AMPTP, nor a wimp. Whether or not he is the best person to lead us right now, he has led unions in strikes before, and will know what to do if that’s the path we need to take.

Since David is new to entertainment, the AMPTP decided to test him — and by extension Patric. So they essentially gave us a take it or leave it proposal without the take it part. For 20 years the WGA has taken a deal rather than strike. Six years ago we caved at the last minute rather than walk out. As far as the AMPTP is concened, why should they give us anything other than a small increase if we are not willing to strike. They think we will cave at the last minute, or even if they don’t think we’ll cave, they are going to force us to actually take the serious and perhaps dangerous step of striking to see if we actually have it in us to do it. For if we don’t, then we have no leverage, because a strike is our only leverage.

Now, if we do go ahead and strike, well, then and only then will they start to negotiate in good faith. And I don’t blame them. If we are unwilling to strike then we have no leverage to get anything more than the type of deal we took three years ago. If we want more than that — and Paula, I guess the big question for you is whether you agree that we need more this time — we’ll have to strike to even get them to start talking seriously.

I guess I should address the question of why we need more this time. No one can accurately predict when all TV and feature distribution will move to the internet, but it has started already and is only heading in one direction. Eventually television will all come to your home or your iPod over the internet. DVD’s will go away and movies will come to you over the internet, whether for temporary rental or permanent downloads that you will own. Companies like Netflix and Amazon.com are already positioning themselves for that day. Even movie theaters will eventually be showing their movies through digital projection systems rather than with film projectors — indeed, that transition is already underway. And if internet transmission of content is the cheapest scale under our contract, don’t think that the studios won’t start saying that it’s not TV, it’s internet since it comes to your TV through the internet now. Ditto they’ll say the movies you see in the theater should be paid at the internet rate not the theatrical rate since they are being transmitted digitally over the internet.

In the past, whether with homevideo/DVD or cable TV, as new technologies came along the Guild was slow to ensure that these new methods would be covered in our contract at a rate that would compensate us fairly. And since we didn’t lock up these new technologies when they were fresh, by the time the next contract came around and the studios were making a ton of money from these new technologies, they were unwilling to come up in the rates they paid us. Thus DVD’s, which now account for more profit per movie release than the theatrical exhibition of that film, pay us an incredibly tiny amount of money. This was a huge mistake the Guild made back when and the leadership feels — and I think most Guild members agree — we can’t let this happen again.

It is all going to the Internet. ALL OF IT. The studios know it and that’s why they are saying, drop the idea of getting this covered now or we will drop residuals. So that’s where we stand. You could view it as deterrence or mutually assured destruction. Or, we could show that we are willing to strike, which would eventually start to harm their bottom line and bother the CEO’s and their Wall Street supporters, and then, maybe, either after a short time or a long time, they would be willing to negotiate with us.

Sure the costs of what we’re asking for are small in the overall scheme of production costs. The studios have already slashed writing costs to the bone. Do you know people on sitcoms? I do. The staffs are half of what they were five years ago, and the writers are making half of what they used to make. Development deals in TV, once the main source of financial security for television writers, are virtually unheard of nowadays. But the way the studios see it, whatever they give us, they will have to also give the directors and the actors. And while I’d still argue it won’t be that much relative to the bloated costs of production these days, it’s more than the studios are willing to accept.

There is of course also the issue of machismo, or whatever you want to call it. The AMPTP negotiators and the studio and network heads fancy themselves as tough. They’re not going to be pushed around. They’re going to show us who’s boss. They’re going to drive us to our knees and teach us how the bargaining game works and then get a laugh when we beg them to give us any deal. I hate to say that this machismo is such an important factor in all of this, but it is. So unfortunately we need to be tough, too. In the past we haven’t had leadership willing to be strong if need be, but now we do. And I feel we are only asking for strike authorization now because without it we will not be taken seriously by the other side and will not be offered even a fraction of what we desperately need — which is to establish a fair and reasonable formula for the internet before it’s too late. And I also feel that we will only strike if the AMPTP is refusing to negotiate in good faith on this issue, and if a strike is the only way to get them to start a good-faith negotiation. I know Patric somewhat and he doesn’t strike me as a rash person. Not at all. He strikes me as practical person. I believe he is a lawyer as well as a writer, or at least he went to law school. He knows what a strike could do to people’s livelihoods and careers and I feel that he will proceed cautiosly and only do what is necessary. But for us to make any progress on the issue of the internet before it is too late, a strike — or at minimum a strike authorization — may be necessary.

Even Craig, certainly no fan of Patric or David, has said we should (if with noses held) vote yes to at least authorize a strike. If our current contract only paid us well for broadcasts on black-and-white TV sets, or films shown on hand-cranked nickelodeons, we writers would be in bad financial shape. That is the situation we are facing — we’ll have a brand new contract, but by 2010 it won’t have a fair rate of compensation for 90 percent of what we now call film and TV but what the studios will be insisting is Internet, which will be paid at a terrible rate.

These are not a bunch of nut jobs running the Guild right now. Maybe some on this website will tell you they are, but they were elected with overwhelming majorities both times they ran because almost all of the membership realizes we have to hold firm now, or the WGA as we know it could be gone.

That is my best attempt at a reasoned response to your questions. I sincerely apologize for my nastiness before and hope you will let it go. Thanks.

Oh, and BTW, while I agree that striking would suck, and it’s no good, and we ought to do everything to avoid a strike, basically WGA leadership has put us in a position that the only helpful solution is to approve the strike. It doesn’t mean we’ll strike for sure, but if we don’t show strong support for a strike (regardless if we like it or not), it will be a HUGE victory for the studios. And we’ll be happy for now that we get to keep on working, but the studios will be happy in the future when they’re counting their stacks of money, and we’re stuck with the same crappy formula. It’s unfortunate that the leaders have put their members in such a position, but there’s not much that can be done about that at this point. This is the lesser of the two evils. All we can do, in my opinion, is vote in support of the strike, and pray like hell that we don’t, cause the other option would screw us for sure.

Thanks Brian,

I agree that neither side is negotiating in good faith. Is there a reason why we shouldn’t step up and try. I was struck by your point that, “The belief (and I’m not saying it’s not correct) is that you can’t get new medium residuals without the threat of a strike.”

So is the decision to call for a strike authorization vote now a tactical move to help us to win on the new medium residual issue later on? Is there a tactical reason for not allowing more time for actual negotiations? For example, was a decision made to not make any concessions now so that we could strengthen our position during a strike with the hope of getting new medium residuals plus whatever else we might get if we didn’t take it off the table to soon? Or????

Btw, I wouldn’t be asking these question if I didn’t actually want to hear other peoples’ opinionsm and if I weren’t willing to reconsider my own position in light of new information or insights.

(Note: you can no longer click on my name to get to my blog because I don’t really need to be attached there too.)

Member- thanks for your most recent post, it certainly gives some real insight into where you’re coming from.

I’ve got a question for you, and any other WGA members - you mention that David Young’s “experience comes from leading unions in the construction trade,” and that ” he has led unions in strikes before, and will know what to do if that’s the path we need to take.”

Exactly what is his history leading unions? I understand he has been an organizer for unions in construction and garment trades, but what unions has he led? I have done a fair amount of searching for info on Mr. Young with little success.

As far as his strike record, well, what is it exactly? How many times has he been able to motivate a work force to take on an employer and win a solid, enforcable contract? How many times has he been able to organize a workforce to the level of renegotiating a mature contract such as your MBA?

What are the qualifications that Mr. Young has that made him the best candidate to be your ED? On what grounds was he promoted from Organizing Director (without ever organizing anything) to Executive Director?

This is not a troll post. You made a very impassioned and well thought out post, which leads me to believe you may have some insights into these questions as well.

*I am neither a WGA member, nor a company schill. I am someone that works in the same industry as you, in a much different capacity, but who will be affected in much the same way as you, should it be necessary for the WGA to strike.

Below the line, this from wga website:

Young graduated magna cum laude from San Diego University with a BA in economics and has devoted his professional career to the labor movement. He served as assistant director of organization at the Laborers’ California Organizing Fund since 1999, where he successfully signed dozens of new construction industry employers to work agreements. Young also served as director of organizing for the Southern California-Nevada Regional Council of Carpenters, where he planned and supervised winning campaigns covering nearly 1,000 workers.

Prior to that, Young was supervisor of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters’ Southern California Construction Organizing Project, spear-heading a joint organizing project of Teamsters International and Local 952. From 1991 to 1997, Young served as assistant national director of organizing for the Union of Needle Trades, Industrial, and Textile Employees (UNITE), where he planned and directed major campaigns resulting in thousands of employees receiving union benefits for the first time.

I have heard personal stories of his tactics but now doesn’t seem like the time to reveal them. Suffice it to say I thought they were hard-nosed and gave me the clear impression that this guy knows what to do to win and doesn not like to lose.

member,

Thanks for the insight. I think you’ve articulated the necessity for the WGA to stand firm right now. The studios are raking in fat stacks of cash every single second right now from iTunes downloads alone. And the growth rate of such sales is exponential. No studies need to be done, they know exactly how much they are making down to the cent.

I just don’t see how the WGA can ever be taken seriously under these conditions if they don’t fight to get what is fair and reasonable. When you have people that are appreciated for what they contribute, treated fairly, and given financial incentive to work hard and deliver quality then the result is always better for everyone involved. Studios will make more money with better films and shows.

Folks, a gentle reminder as we proceed into the rough waters ahead…

We have a simple rule about comments, and it’s posted right above the comments box.

Please Keep The Tone Civil

I allow more leeway on this rule when criticism is directed at me. For instance, I haven’t deleted the handful of posts above that essentially accuse me of being both a liar and a conspirator against my own union.

However, I will delete comments that are personally abusive toward other commenters.

Passions are bound to run hot on this issue, and if we do strike, I suspect some people will go nuclear.

Be as demonstrative and expressive as you’d like. Just don’t be uncivil.

David Young has never been the Executive Director of a union before.

The last strike he was involved with before coming to us was, I believe, a seamstress strike against the Guess Jeans Company. My understanding is that not only did that strike fail, but the company relocated all the jobs to Mexico.

Once taking the E.D. position at the WGA, David led a strike against America’s Next Top Model, and the results were similar. The strike failed, and the company simply eliminated all writing positions.

That’s not to say that David Young hasn’t learned since then, nor does it mean he’s bound to fail in this negotiation. I hope he has grown to encompass more of a pragmatic approach. I have to hope this.

Because he’s the chief negotiator for my union.

Forced optimism time.

Craig, I’m coming a little bit late to all of this. Were you a McLean supporter?

Wondering:

Not as such. I wasn’t calling for his head, like the Verrone gang. On the other hand, I voted as a Board Member to terminate his contract, even though I voted against the subsequent appointment of David Young.

In other words, I felt we could do better than John. Whether we have or not remains to be seen. I think SAG’s appointment of Doug Allen was far more visionary.

Interestingly, I think current NegCom chairman John Bowman was more of a McLean fan than I. I think guys who came from business backgrounds tended to appreciate John more.

I can’t WAIT to lose my job come November 1! How exciting! Maybe I can get started on that decoupage crib! Boy, I sure wish my wife weren’t pregnant! Shucks, I guess I shouldn’t’ve knocked her up right before the writers and producers decided to get in a dick measuring contest!

WhhhhhhhhhhEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have a question, it’s kind of a meta question, here it goes - assuming there are real working writers, or at the very least wga members, behind all these anonymous posts on this and previous strike related posts, what makes you decide not to put your real name under a comment?

Just curious.

I mean, what kind of prosecution or negative repercussions do you people expect?

P.S. Big Member IS my real name… and I’m not even in the guild, heh.

member,

Allow me to state publicly—here on the anonymous record, for whatever it’s worth—how severely I underestimated you earlier.

I just read your post six or seven times straight through, and I have nothing at all to add to what you’ve said except: Yes. Exactly. This is the best, clearest, most cogent description of why we’re here and what’s at stake that I’ve seen written down anywhere. Period. I wish it were the first response on this page, rather than the 173rd one or whatever, because it deserves a read from anyone who’s still on the fence about the strike. (And even those who aren’t, for that matter.)

Bravo, sir. Well fucking said.

To all of you who are concerned, let me assuage your feelings of worry:

I will easily weather this strike.

And it’s not just because I have a seven figure quote.

It’s also because I am a genuinely interesting person.

That and the fact that I write hit songs.

Good to know you’re not worried, Tim. I, however, am, because like the guy a couple posts up, I’m gonna lose my job too. There are a few of us out there who aren’t writers but the minute the strike hits, we’re out of work along with you. And while you write hit songs, are a genuinely interesting person, and have a seven figure quote, I’ve got a mortgage, savings that’ll last me about four months, six if I really stretch it, and a car that needs a new transmission, but it doesn’t matter, because I won’t need to drive to work anyway come Nov 1. Here’s hoping I can take out a line of equity on my home.

Just so you know, good ol’ Tim, this isn’t all jokey-jokes for many of us. What you guys are debating is going to affect more people than just writers, and we ain’t swimming in cash. I’m not sure I’ve heard you guys talk about that yet. You are aware there are other people in the world, right?

Simon -

Are you THE “Simon” from Josh Olson’s hit feature article in this week’s LA WEEKLY?

Cuz he seemed somewhat dour and bland.

And if you is him, I can see why “Audrey” left you for a chick-written internet figment.

If not, I still feel your pain, bubba.

“Not Creative Enough for Chip,” you are aces in my book, brother. Aces.

I’m not a WGA member or a troll. I’m reading this blog for fun and to see what “real” writers talk about when they’re not writing (there are hundreds, if not thousands, of aspiring writers who read this, BTW). A few of you speak/write well here but I’m really surprised at the lack of coherence in many of the posts and the mean-spiritedness of others. I don’t know you, Craig, but you seem to be the most “thoughtful” (rational, logical, articulate) of the bunch. Thanks for letting us look.

———————->

I hate long posts— reading them and writing them— so I skipped Member’s long post up there: written on October 11th at 8:42 PM.

But that was a mistake. It is clear-headed, cautiously worded, and eloquent. It also gives a fairly objective account of the last six months or so. Well worth reading.

In fact, Craig, you have guest writers writing the essays above. Why don’t you make Member’s account one of those? I know it won’t get the same thumbs-up review from AMPTP Spokeswoman and international jetsetter, Barbara Brogliatti, but it seems to be an account you agree with, or, at least, you agree with 90% of it.

But either way, it’s excellent reading.

Thank you, Member, for your thoughtful post. As I seek out a better understanding of the issues at hand, I found your long post extremely helpful. Please continue. It’s voices like yours (and Craig’s) that help shed light during this very trying time. Thank you.

Dear Craig,

Love the bit about David Young and the Guess Jeans. Tell the one about how he tried to put the jeans on and fell down on a rake. Keep up the good work. You are bringing sanity to these negotiations!

Warmest,

Barbara Brogliati Internation Women of Mystery

<< No, Mr. or Ms. Anonymous at 5:33 PM. All our creative contracts require that we not honor the strikes of the other creative unions— as long as our contracts are still in effect. So if Craig did NOT cross any potential WGA picket line, he would be in breach of his contract and probably sued.

Posted by: Anon anon at October 11, 2007 5:43 PM >>

Anon anon, some directors are going to honor the picket line if there’s a strike. So will some actors. It’s not about breach of contract and getting sued. It’s about either honoring the picket line or not. Some people will risk being sued, etc. Other won’t. I’m believe and hope Craig falls into the camp of honoring the picket line of what is essentially his own union.

I also hope many other writer/directors, directors and actors honor the picket lines should there be a strike. The writer/directors on the negoatiating committee will and I bet others will.

Craig, hasn’t publically said he will honor the picket line, which is bothersome, but we can hope he’s going to. So far, he’s been a union stallwart, even when he criticizes tactics and or personnel.

I’m still trying to figure out how people who are too afraid to post under their real name for fear of offending the Producers can be brave enough to turn around and fight same said Producers.

What’s your plan? Guerilla TP warfare?

In all seriousness, it seems to me that writers aren’t using some of their biggest weapons:

Smarts and Printed Words.

Writers are good at research can write biting and satirical character critiques -

why not make a Top 10 Villainous Swine list and start going after the worst offenders in print?

People with huge egos (stars, producers) might be willing to be insufferable in private, but they HATE for their public image to suffer.

More importantly: studios have long broken the law by claiming to lose money on films which are, in fact, profitable. Everyone knows this.

Alone, no writer is powerful enough to do anything about that, but why continue to passively accept it as a union?

Why not - AS A UNION - go after the studios for what is clearly legal fraud regarding those instances when profits are made but promised net points are not paid?

Travis, for a number of lame, but very real reasons. Blacklist fear was the first to come to mind.

I sincerely doubt anyone will be blacklisted by studios for criticizing their own union…

Just saying.

Dear Craig,

Some people are catching on.

It seems like a good idea to keep playing up the idea that you are the true rebel for bucking your own union: that this is the tougher stance— because, well, I know it doesn’t make sense; but that’s why you’re the writer, kiddo.

Wait. Suggest that Patric Verrone and his gang (good one: keep up the “gang” references) have a blacklist of some kind. Um, maybe to keep people from… okay, I’m lost there. But think up something.

Oh, and regarding the David Young bio: “seamstress” is good. It sounds just effeminate enough. Still love Guess Jeans. Even though he’s fighting it, it makes it sound like he’s wearing them. Teehee. I think that’s funny, men wearing tight jeans.

Keep up the good work. You’re bringing sanity to these negotiations!

Your biggest fan,

Barbara Brogliati, International Woman of Mystery

PS— Is this still a good place to send private mail to you?

Anon: Yeah, I guess that’s obvious, and no, I really don’t blame people for being afraid when there are, in fact, perfectly legitimate reasons to BE afraid.

But how are you going to win a fight against a bully who’s taking your lunch money when you’re afraid to even offend the guy? You’re not.

I had a problem with a bully once - a much bigger and older kid. My Dad taught me how to box, and after that I never had problems with bullies once they realized the price of bullying me was far too high - so they moved on to the wimps.

(I know the analogy is a stretch, since the bully wasn’t my employer, but still.) they’d have to endure for the price of

I think a lot of the contortions we’re putting ourselves through have to do with a tiny flicker of hope that the AMPTP is, can, or will be reasonable, and that there is some justification for their strategy so far. But really, sadly, there isn’t, except to low-ball us into thinking we’ve “won” a round of the negotiations when they finally take the absurd rollbacks off the table. To cross our arms and shake our heads and say “Enough, there will be NO negotiations, until you do that,” is the only reasonable, grown-up response. Face it.

re: Michael F’s post,

or we could ask the AMPTP to give us a list of which films and tv shows they consider to have had the kind of profits that would have generated residuals to us under their new plan. And then we should ask them to open up their books on the ones they say aren’t profitable and demnostrate to us why these were deemed to not be profitable. It’s my understanding that when we ask to double the DVD pittance they respond by asking us to justify this request with numbers and that WE ARE ACTUALLY DOING THIS! WE ACTUALLY HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SPENT TIME COMING UP WITH NUMBERS TO PRESENT TO THEM TO JUSTIFY OUR REQUEST! So if they can ask us to prove it, why aren’t we insisting they open up their books to us, permanently in fact, and show us the accounting. Are we afraid to appear unreasonable if we don’t agree to their demand to prove it to us? They’re certainly not afraid to appear unreasonable, why should we?

Dear Craig,

Sorry to keep snowflaking you, but we had another meeting at the AMPTP, and a few other things came up we want you to keep in mind.

We know you have to retain your street cred with the writers, but please please PLEASE don’t move past calling our proposal “nuts.” You can even put “Nuts” in caps. “Crazy” is fine. “Childish” is good. We don’t even mind “a gambit.” Hey, even some of the CEOs are calling them that. (Don’t ask. We had to have Barry Meyer phone one. Not pretty. It’s like herding cats.)

Here’s the thing. Stay away from the specifics in our proposals, okay, hon’? The specifics tend to get the writers angry, and make the writers stick to their proposals. (Hey, we know you had to do it once. But all is forgiven.)

On the other hand, do do DO keep bringing up the writer’s ridiculous proposals. Okay? The whole point is to get them to move off theirs. Okay, babe?

Talk about the “moral high ground.” And the writer’s needing to move to the moral high ground. (You should’ve seen Nick Counter laugh when I read him that. I mean: literally: milk… out… of… nose. ) Our testing shows writers love the “Moral high ground” talk. It’s like string with a cat.

Sorry, I have cats on the mind. Percy had kittens. And they are adorable. I’ll send you a picture.

Anyway, sorry to keep bugging you. Keep up the good work. You’re bringing sanity to these negotioations!

Your biggest fan,

Barbara Brogliati, AMPTP (and cat lover— teehee)

PS.— You didn’t answer, but this is still a good place to send private mail, right?

Wondering:

It is crucial to not engage on AMPTP proposal.

Paula:

Yes, it is a tactic. I am obviously not an insider, but I think the late negotiation start is a designed tactic too. I think the late start coupled with public strike threats was unwise, because that’s when the stockpiling started.

I think it’s great the WGA has some numbers to run. I’m hoping the negotiating committee is forcing the AMPTP to show their numbers on downloads. This is new territory. Both sides have to justify their positions. Not just one.

My only problem with not engaging at all is the very real possibility that the AMPTP doesn’t put a residual rollback on the DGA bargaining table and the DGA ends up setting the download rate at a level we deem unacceptable.

We can stand up and say we’re not going to do anything as long as the AMPTP keeps its ridiculous proposal on the table, but we can’t guarantee that the DGA or SAG won’t end up making our deal for us. And then we end up having struck for however long (possibly months) and still not getting what we wanted.

It seems like by not trying to negotiate at all, we’re taking ourselves out of the process and hoping the DGA comes up with something. I don’t think they’re going to rush in and try to undercut us, but at some point, they’re going to negotiate their contract and not all of their interests coincide with ours.

Don’t misunderstand me. Not saying don’t negotiate. I’m saying negotiate only on your terms. If you start in on AMPTP proposal, then that becomes the playing field.

The DGA might make an agreement. But you can’t base now on what might happen next. Anticipate, yes. But don’t create policy on it.

“But how are you going to win a fight against a bully who’s taking your lunch money when you’re afraid to even offend the guy? You’re not.”

Some of us would rather the debate continue to be about the debate. Letting people know who you are allows those opposed to more easily attack the messenger (just like the side issue of how Craig’s deal with FOX makes any of his comments or positions suspect).

Some people unfamiliar with Guild politics have asked why so many writers, especially those unhappy with the current leadership, are posting anonymously. The smartest people in Hollywood, without a doubt, are the writers. They are also the most vindictive, mean-spirited, and demagogic, and tend to view the world as made up of two kinds of people: Hitlers and themselves. In 1988, when we met to vote on ending a six-month strike, several people approached the microphone and read out one by one the names of writers who publicly questioned the Guild’s strategy. (This from a union that treats as icons writers who were blacklisted in the fifties.) When the current leadership took office, they immediately and unceremoniously fired a dozen staff people, some of whom had worked hard for the Guild for twenty years. In the recent election, when the Writers United slate was assured of winning by a huge margin, an outside candidate asked people to vote for him just to have a different set of eyes in the Boardroom. He was immediately trashed as a management plant, in a Guild-wide e-mail by two well-known WU writers. You would think writers of all people could engage in a free exchange of ideas, but it doesn’t work that way. Just look at how many people on this thread go after Craig personally rather than address the substance of his ideas. It’s much more than name-calling or ridicule, though, it’s going after your reputation in a closed community. And there can be economic ramifications as well, since often writers are in a position to hire other writers. Gonzalez’s assistant who wouldn’t allow the Justice Department to hire any Democrats? You can multiply that smallmindedness two or three fold when it comes to writers.

Now, if we controlled 100% of the talent and workers in Hollywood, I suppose we could use that angry craziness as a bargaining tactic. But we represent one small part of the overall labor force — we are only the fourth or fifth most powerful union in Hollywood — and in the past management has often blown right past us and negotiated with other unions, so we were forced to fall in line. To get what we wanted, we’ve had to convince management we really aren’t like that image of the wild-eyed irresponsible writer. It worked during the Wells and Petrie years, though some wealthy writers felt we should have gotten more. Now we are employing the opposite strategy, telling management, “No, we really ARE that crazy. We’re even crazier that you realized!” Some of us think that will be, uh, counter-productive. We think management will blow right by us, work out a deal with the DGA, then turn around and offer us a lesser deal. That’s right, a lesser deal — don’t assume we will get whatever DGA gets, because management might well give them a break for making an early deal. We will go on strike, not to gain any leverage but to show how tough we are. Economically a strike hurts both sides, of course, but as anyone not blinded by anger or power or resentment can see, a strike will hurt us, the writers, more than the companies. But, like American schoolkids who fall further and further behind the rest of the world in math and science, at least we’ll good about ourselves.

“Don’t misunderstand me. Not saying don’t negotiate. I’m saying negotiate only on your terms. If you start in on AMPTP proposal, then that becomes the playing field.”

We’re not doing that, though. We’re digging in just as far and saying that even our ridiculous demands are part of our final offer.

If neither side ever gives anything, then there’s no negotiation and the DGA makes our deal for us.

Must have hit the delete button by accident. Last line: a strike may hurt us more than them, but at least we’ll feel good about ourselves.

If numbers are being exchanged, negotiations are happening.

The DGA is going to do what the DGA wants to do. There is nothing that can be done about that, regardless of wherever the WGA is in their talks.

Dear Craig,

Darn. We had Howie down in accounting write something in to your web site in an attempt to divide writers economically— you know rich against poor— and by faction— Petrie, Wells, Verrone, etc. And he hit send before he could correct a typo. Craig, can you correct the last line so it reads “at least we’ll feel good about ourselves.” Sorry, we can’t do it at our end.

And did you see MAD MEN last night? It was so cool. It’s past Percy’s bedtime. So it was just me and Orville. (No, Redenbacher, silly. Popcorn. Duh.)

Keep it up. You’re bringing sanity to these negotiations!

Your biggest fan,

Barbara Brogliati, AMPTP Spokersperson (and mad for Mad Men, teehee)

Is it not fair to say that the AMPTP’s position STOPPED all reasonable discussion? I was searching my mind for a metaphor but “how about we just drop residuals entirely except for profits we’ve spent the last few decades telling you don’t exist” trumped anything I could come up with. As I said before, in somewhat different words: we want to believe they’re negotiating with us - and not laughing at us.

Babs4fun:

First of all, it’s not fun. Second of all, are you a drama writer who wishes he were funny, or are you an unfunny comedy writer, like on Leno or something. Please limit your posts to occassionally. It’s not your substance I have a problem with, it’s your form.

Thanks. (Tee-not funny-hee)

Anon#19:

Well, that was a fine post, and unfortunately I’ve met enough writers to say that while it dismays me to read that, it doesn’t surprise me.

Writers aren’t the most likeable artists in the world - in fact, they’re probably the least.

And they’re probably not the most talented artists in the world, either.

But I firmly believe that they are the most IMPORTANT artists in the world.

What is the one piece of art nearly every poor family owned, in centuries past?

The Bible.

The works of Shakespeare came 2nd.

(Yes: a Western Christian POV. But still.)

And what’s our legal system based on?

Writing.

The printed word has great power, and I just don’t see too many PRO writers, masters of the most powerful art and the substance of law, are using their skills to illuminate their problem with greedy producers in the media.

Strikes historically go a lot better when the sympathy of the public can be aroused, and cheating is something anyone can understand.

Anon posting promotes incivility and backbiting, but if it must be used, it’s best used for whistleblowing and otherwise indirectly fighting powers that cannot be fought directly -

so I see why it’s being used.

But I still think it could be put to better use vs. the most notorious anti-Writer Producers instead of those Writers such as Ted and Craig who are the most helpful to their bretheren.

i like it, but maybe that’s because i sort of agree with it…

people should stop defending Craig from crazy accusations. All it does is drag it out and lead to sub-threads about crazy shit.

Malcolm, does that mean you are FOR crazy accusations or AGAINST them?

<< They are also the most vindictive, mean-spirited, and demagogic, and tend to view the world as made up of two kinds of people: Hitlers and themselves. >>

Actually, most writers are not vindictive or mean-spirited. We wouldn’t get any work if we were. The way it works is through compromise and collaboration. Somewhere on John August’s blog, he says that the most important ingredient of his success is his ability to get along. Ranked higher than writing talent. So you’re off base on that one.

And on being anonymous, it’s not to hide, it’s just more convenient than checking one’s every post. The Internet is more like a conversation, than a treatise.

Also, dissent is fine. The only thing I think we want is unity if we strike in terms of honoring picket lines.

As another poster asked, we hope Craig posts that he will honor the picket line as a director. That is going to be asked of all writer/directors, so it’s not personal.

“The DGA is going to do what the DGA wants to do. There is nothing that can be done about that, regardless of wherever the WGA is in their talks.

Posted by: Brian McCabe at October 12, 2007 12:39 PM”

Brian: I have enjoyed your thoughtful posts, but I think you’re wrong on this one. And any writer who was around in 1985 would agree with me.

Mark me down as a fan of babs4fun. Did you read the Wall Street Journal article? It was a love letter. But I love Mad Men too.

Wow, that took me two hours to go through and I find out that everyone who matters thinks the same way I do.

Writers are not the scum of the earth and carry the DGA, SAG and the studios to immense profitability while some don’t even get invited to the premier of their movie.

As a new writer who is working with independent producers the strike is not good or bad for me, just weird. Weird that it comes when get serious about screenwriting (I have a blog and all).

As a person who follows business closely, I can say that a strike is nearly in the cards. I mean, when the studios say “boo-hoo it’s killing us to pay your 2.5%” they obviously are testing the resolve of the Guild.

As I said in the Strike Vote post, do it now. Don’t wait for a savior. Sure some writers are in the DGA but that still won’t get the writers the best deal unless they handle it as writers first since the DGA contract isn’t up until June.

I personally hate the idea of selling my movies outright anyway so it doesn’t really affect me if the studios aren’t buying right now.

What’s really funny is that I decided to pitch at FadeIn Conference anyway next week. OK, so I just wanna hang out with people who make movies. I have written a few scripts. Some might even be good.

Just kidding. They’re all beyond belief. Maybe.

Anyway, I hope that writers can get more of out their work, but I can say now that the DVD issue is dead. I think that issue is the most confusing one to me.

I mean 2% of 20% is not bad considering that when peope do buy a DVD they don’t have to pay anymore and their wole family can watch it for the same price. It’s nearly the same with downloads.

Of course writers deserve something everytime their product is viewed in any venue, but it is hard to put value on a download because again there is a one-time charge, unlimited views and even unlimited viewers per download.

I don’t agree with the studios that a fair value can be attained without years of research but I wouldn’t expect it to be a windfall.

But downloads do afford the studios a chance to save lots of money by eliminating packaging, lots of marketing (the Internet markets itself), even more shipping and a ridiculous amount of distribution costs.

It’s a brave new world for movies and the studios need to see the writing on the wall. Most Americans don’t need giant posters everywhere. I have NEVER seen a movie because of the poster. As a matter of fact, some posters have turned me off the movie entirely (Steve Carrell doing Marilyn - someone should be shot).

MySpace is a gold mine for advertising; as are MTV.com, CNN.com, FaceBook.com. Not to mention how many IT sites there are with people who really need to get out of the house.

Hey did I get off-topic? Not sure but I’m with you guys. Unfortunately, I’m also with the studios. Not because I think they’re right but because I have several movies I would be willing to sell for any reasonable amount.

Not to mention that SW development just isn’t as much fun as it used to be.

Anyway, here’s to a short strike and a great contract.

BTW Craig, let me know if you need a writer who works for food. j\k Maybe.

And don’t forget to visit my blog.

In fact, Craig, you have guest writers writing the essays above. Why don’t you make Member’s account one of those?

I have no problem with people posting comments anonymously, but I won’t host anonymous essays. If you won’t put your name to your thoughts, you have to deal with certain limitations.

Particularly if you’re a writer.

Anonymous #19: “we are only the fourth or fifth most powerful union in Hollywood…”

Who are 1, 2, 3 and 4 in your opinion?

And shouldn’t writers be #1? I mean, since story is the most important aspect of a movie or TV show?

And why is it a given that if the DGA negotiates their deal first, the WGA will necessarily follow suit?

..why is it a given that if the DGA negotiates their deal first, the WGA will necessarily follow suit?

Nothing’s a given, but there’s long historical precedent.

Once the DGA makes a deal, the AMPTP will turn around and say: “Okay, here’s the template, boys and girls. Come back to the table and be reasonable like the directors. There’s no point in staying out for a year, just to be stubborn. Because we’re not budging from what we negotiated with the DGA.”

And the pressure of time, dwindling financial reserves, also media and peer pressure will be brought to bear.

The reason the WGA is not at the top of the “most powerful guild” list is because it can only hope to shut down production when stockpiled scripts run out. The other Big Three can shut down production immediately.

I’m not saying it’s right. I’m saying it’s stone cold reality.

“Anonymous #19: “we are only the fourth or fifth most powerful union in Hollywood…”

Who are 1, 2, 3 and 4 in your opinion?

And shouldn’t writers be #1? I mean, since story is the most important aspect of a movie or TV show?

And why is it a given that if the DGA negotiates their deal first, the WGA will necessarily follow suit?

Posted by: Dave L at October 12, 2007 1:38 PM”

Dave L: When I used the word “powerful,” I was speaking from a negotiations point-of-view, not creatively. As a writer, yeah, I would LOVE to hand some of these actors and directors 45 or 120 blank pages and see what happens. But market power is something else altogether. (Teachers are more “important” than fashion models, but this is America and…well, you get the point.) SAG has the most power of any union for two reasons: actors command more money than writers or directors, and all of production shuts down without actors. DGA is next, because they’re the ones entrusted with the companies’ investment. They don’t trust actors or writers (except showrunners in TV) to deliver the film, they trust directors. CAA figured that out thirty years ago and basically controlled the town for an entire generation. Only SAG and DGA can shut down the town immediately, and that gives them the #1 and #2 ranking. IATSE — which represents the crew — is #3, because they, too, have the capacity to shut things down immediately. Individually they don’t do as well as actors or directors or writers, but as a union the studios are much more concerned about pissing them off than the WGA. That’s why it has been lunacy for the current leadership to pick fights with the head of the IA (see today’s papers). #4 is probably the WGA. I say “probably” because twenty years ago the Teamsters were more feared, but then the IA chopped them off at the knees and they haven’t really recovered. But a Teamsters’ strike would still cause significant and immediate damage.

As for why a DGA deal would box us in: see Craig’s posts on pattern bargaining. Plus, once you establish a standard with union A, you can’t then be more generous with union B or 1) union A will go after you ferociously the next time around, and 2) you encourage every other union to go after more in all subsequent negotiations. Management knows this and will look to DGA to set the ceiling. That’s what happened in ‘85 with videocassettes. We had them by the shorthairs thanks to previous contract language and brought an arbitration that would have meant BILLIONS for the WGA. But the DGA made their own videocassette deal with management and undermined our legal position substantially. So we caved and withdrew the arbitration claim, and got $1 million extra dollars for the health fund, which disappeared in less than a year. Management got a much better video formula, which turned out to be a MUCH MUCH better formula. (The same people at the DGA are handling the current negotiations as in ‘85, by the way). There’s more to ‘85 — some people have argued that management would have forced us to strike forever if we didn’t agree to change the formula they’d agreed to earlier — but that’s the nub of it.

Anonymous #19 wrote: Some of us think that will be, uh, counter-productive. We think management will blow right by us, work out a deal with the DGA, then turn around and offer us a lesser deal. That’s right, a lesser deal — don’t assume we will get whatever DGA gets, because management might well give them a break for making an early deal.

Dear Anonymous #19,

Are you familiar with the “Most Favored Nations” clause in our agreement with the AMPTP? The WGA can receive no less than anything the other talent guilds receive in negotiations. Yes, there are issues which we have which are not identical to SAG or the DGA but, for the most part, they are.

So then why stir up fear that the AMPTP is going to punish us with a lesser deal when, legally, they cannot?

I must say that I’ve been coming here less and less because I can’t believe anything anyone posts under the name “Anonymous.” Why should I even believe that you’re a bone fide member of the WGA. And now that most people here seem to be hiding behind the cloak of anonymity there isn’t much worthwhile to read other than Craig’s original posts.

You also wrote that professional screenwriters “are also the most vindictive, mean-spirited, and demagogic, and tend to view the world as made up of two kinds of people: Hitlers and themselves.” Please excuse my mean-spiritedness but you’re full of shit. Both your argument and you. You may be projecting your own personality disorders onto screen and TV writers but my 30 years in Hollywood haven’t led to the same conclusion. We may be big-mouths, we may be babies, we may even just be schmucks with Underwoods but no more pathologically negative and vindictive than the next Joe or Jane.

And what are you afraid that fellow writers could or would do to you if you signed your name to your posts? Not hire you as a staff writer on their show? Big fucking deal. Most people don’t get hired anyway. Close you out of Guild politics? Impossible. You can always run for office by petition and join any open committee.

Just sign your name next time and some of us might actually listen to what you have to say.

Best,

Clifford J. Green

Clifford: On Nov. 1 the MBA expires and with it the most favored nations clause, the no-strike clause, and lots of other provisions.

Mr. Green wrote: Just sign your name next time and some of us might actually listen to what you have to say.

How so? You signed your name and I’m not listening to what you have to say.

You don’t think DGA got a better deal than us three years ago? You’s wrong wrong wrong.

Makes me miss Babs4fun. Babs where are you? Come back Babs.

Cliff, are you also known by the aliases George Kaplan and W.W. Wicket?

This is an open forum. Posting under an assumed name affords protection from the same industry that forces writers/actors/etc into the position of having to lie about their age so they can at least have a shot at a job.

Interesting that the only point Clifford/George Kaplan made relating to the negotiations — that the “Most Favored Nations” clause continues after the MBA expires — he was dead wrong.

Anonymous #19 wrote: “As a writer, yeah, I would LOVE to hand some of these actors and directors 45 or 120 blank pages and see what happens.”

And, as a director, I’d love to hand the theaters your 120 sheets of paper filled with beautifully crafted words and see how many people pay to read your script while munching popcorn. :)

Thanks #19.

Does anyone have any guess as to what the WGA would consider an acceptable proposal from the studios?

I’m guessing that if there was a decent increase on DVD residuals, say 50% instead of double, and then a comparable residual established for the internet, that would be enough? Doesn’t seem too much to ask.

Dave L. — Maybe you could get the WGA leadership to reveal exactly what they would and would not accept from the AMPTP. That would really help us in the negotiation.

“And, as a director, I’d love to hand the theaters your 120 sheets of paper filled with beautifully crafted words and see how many people pay to read your script while munching popcorn. :)

Posted by: Anon B. De Mille at October 12, 2007 3:45 PM”

Good point, M. De Mille. If it said “A Film By” on the cover page, I bet they would pay a lot.

I have a question for Craig. I tried to ask this question in the Variety comments, but should have known better - they won’t post it. It’s been two days. I’ve given up waiting.

So here is my question:

Now, I know that the WGA has told its members they are not to work for Internet entities (including ones that are not repped by the AMPTP) however, what if an independent Internet entity not repped by AMPTP were to suggest a favorable, acceptable deal with the WGA regarding rates, in effect, becoming a separate signatory?

Would they be forced to reject it out of hand for strategic purposes? (In my mind, the WGA making an agreement with another bargaining agency is analogous to the AMPTP making an agreement with the DGA.)

Because in my mind, it might drive home the point and garner more strength for the WGA if the studios knew that there were other employers out there, employers who were willing to treat the WGA fairly because they knew that it would enable them to swoop in and tie up a majority of top talent - thus creating a real competitor to current studios/networks in a fraction of a second.

I’ve always thought a company like Yahoo might do something like that, since it’s always wanted to be in entertainment instead of search anyways. Or, quite honestly, any wannabe mogul with half a billion of Wall Street cash and an ounce of smarts.

Just a thought. Go ahead and tell me why I’m wrong, I’m sure there’s something I’ve missed, or everyone would have been asking why the WGA wasn’t doing that already. I’m just wondering, is all…

Susie T:

There’s a history of companies making “sweetheart” deals with unions during strikes. They agree, essentially, to the terms that the union is demanding, and as such, the union allows its members to work for that company.

Think of it as the employer version of scabbing.

Anyone who doesn’t understand how much the studios want a strike right now is not informed enough to be joining into this discussion. The people who think that are guilty of anthropomorphisizing these corporate entities, and that’s an absurd way to view the situation.

The same can be said for the person who offered the notion that the Wall Street Journal is populated by “liberal” reporters.

The questions remain. A vigorously pro-corporate interest paper has endorsed a blog run by someone whose position in the industry (or at least the one he claims to hold) is extremely curious.

Mazin has wisely ignored my last post, and left it to others to play the usual “conspiracy theory” accusation game.

Anyone who’s lived through one of these situations is aware that nothing I’m suggesting here is extreme at all.

Be careful which leaders you follow. Be careful who you lionize. Always follow the money and ask yourself whose interests are being best served.

“Anonymous #19” —

Since the favored nations clauses are part of the compensatory terms of the MBA, and since compensation is a mandatory topic of collective bargaining, and since employers are required by law to maintain the status quo in regards to all terms that are mandatory topics of bargaining even after a collective bargaining agreement expires … the favored nations terms continue to be in force beyond the expiration of the MBA, all the way ‘til a new contract is ratified.

• Ted

Susie T,

You are not wrong. In fact, you are totally right. The WGAw could and would gladly negotiate a deal with any financier that wanted to hire WGAw writers. I would hope some company steps to the plate and does that.

BTW, the WGAw will also do interim agreements with companies during the strike should it happen.

Hope that clarifies it for you.

Craig/Ted,

What’s the WGA’s stance on all these comedians and writers doing stuff for free on FunnyOrDie and other sites, where there is no studio involved, and technically they have been doing tons of free work for their own or other websites? Have the guilds generally turned a blind eye? Do Ferrell and McKay approach their respective guilds first to get it cleared?

Mr. Yeesh: sorry, just trying to get a feel for how this might play out from those in the cheap seats. I’m pretty sure no one from AMPTP or the WGA leadership is reading this far into the thread. but if I was reckless I apologize and retract my question. I generally accept advice from anyone named after a Dr. Seuss character.

——————>

Okay, just so I’m clear. Clifford Green won that argument and Anonymous #19 and chadkerm lost, right? Ted Elliott is sort of the smiling Teletubbie sunshine in this universe, right? And he said it is so. That leaves the scoreboard this way…

Clifford Green: 1 Anonymous #19: 0 chadkerm: 0

But try again, guys. Maybe challenge the spelling of Clifford’s name or something.

I have to say that I disagree, somewhat, with the posting by “Member.” I suspect I’ll be in the minority. But, here goes.

I don’t think that getting at stranglehold on Internet revenues should be our first priority. That’s not to say it’s not important, but I think there are other issues that effect us RIGHT NOW — that aren’t getting the attention they deserve.

Let me back up by saying I think the internet and technology are important to those of us in LA and NY. I’m not so sure that movie and TV downloads are as pervasive between Glendale and Hoboken.

I think that most adults in the US live their lives like this: they get up, feed the kids, go to work, come home, eat dinner, put the kids to bed… then they sit down and watch TV from 8 to 11. I don’t see that model changing in the near future. (Yes, there’ll be some young people watching shows on their I-Phone and the like — but nothing beats sitting in front of a big screen TV. But, not for one second do I see families gathering around their I-phones after dinner to watch TV.)

By way of anecdote think of TiVo. For me and everyone I know, it is the greatest TV invention since, well, the invention of TV. It has changed the “what” of “what” I watch on TV — but it has not changed the fact that I sit in front of my TV from 8-11 and watch. For those of us in the entertainment business, TiVo is fantastic… that being said, it has not, caught on in the rest of the country. For the last 3 years, TiVo stock has languished at about 7 bucks a share and it just hasn’t penetrated the market the way you would expect, given it’s incredible and awesome power.

That’s kind of how I feel about the internet. It is awesome. And has the potential to be lucrative for us.

However, I feel about the internet the way I do about TiVo. An incredible machine… that won’t really hurt the way I/we do business (at least not significantly…)

There is another box in my house that also has the potential to cripple the way I do business. It’s called my TV. You likely have one yourself. And if you watch it - there are channels on it called MTV, VH-1, Bravo, GSN, History Channel, Discovery, NBC, FOX, ABC, CBS, and the CW, etc… and all of these channels have programs that are written by writers… and are not covered by our guild’s jurisdiction. Some are game shows, others are reality shows, some are documentaries with voice over narration, some are somewhere in between.

Getting writers covered on ALL shows where we do what we do — to me — seems like a better use of our energies. It will mean more writers getting health care, it will mean more writers with a pension and it will mean we will have MORE power when we negotiate with our employers — because we will really have the ability to cripple them if we go on strike.

I’m voting yes on the strike authorization because no one will take us seriously until they see we have the balls to stand up for ourselves… however, I hope my balls don’t get crushed for what amounts to an empty victory.

Captain Tivo, yes, yes, and double yes. However, isn’t the whole issue over the fact that the TV you’re watching from 8-11 every night will be the internet????? I’m so confused…

So what is this bullshit about the WGA discouraging working on comics during the strike? I’m in the middle of working on a book right now, and I’ve heard from my agent and manager that there’s a memo floating around about this.

Captain TiVo: I don’t think you read Member’s post closely enough. As pointed out by Anonymous in the post immediately following yours, the TV shows you watch from 8 to 11, in your living room, on your nice plasma TV (i’m NOT talking about watching on your computer or your iPod here) will be TRANSMITTED to your nice plasma TV over the internet. In the same way that your telephone conversations with call centers in India are actually travelling over the Internet, the shows you watch on your TV at night will as well. It is about TRANSMISSION. There will not be a damn bit of dfference in your viewing habits nor will you notice anything different nor will your behaviors change but the tv signal will be reaching your same ol’ big living room TV through the internet. Imagine that your power company figured out how to send electricity to your home much more cheaply using licorice wires and the amount of power and its quality were unchanged. Nothing would be different, except that the power would now travel through licorice. Now imagine that the electric company’s deal with its unionized workers provided a much lower hourly rate of pay for licorice. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. Sure the number of people watching “The Office” on their iPods is still relatively small, but iPods, cellphones etc are just one small part of what I’m talking about. THE MEANS OF TRANSMISSION are about to change for your movies and TV, and you can bet that if the stuff travels on the Internet and there’s a lower MBA rate for Internet the studios are going to insist that it counts as Internet.

Angry Anoymous, what do you mean by “comics”? Like Li’l Abner and Krazy Kat? Please elaborate.

Like DC, Image, Wildstorm, Dark Horse, Vertigo, Marvel etc.

Not Anonymous —

I want to remind you that we already have SEVERAL methods by which TV gets to our TV. Some people likely still use rabbit ear anteannas, some people get cable and some get Satellite. My prediction is that this won’t change. I’m sure you’re aware of how flimsy your internet transmission currently is — sometimes you get kicked off line, sometimes your computer freezes up, sometimes you have no signal at all. Plus, with the internet, you have to download these programs you want to see — broadcast, cable and satellite are instantaneous — I turn my TV on, and presto, TV is there. With my internet, I have to boot up my computer, click on a show I want to watch, download it… wait… wait some more… You get the idea… For my money, the most fantastic method for TV delivery is a satellite hooked up to an HD TiVo. When the internet can deliver programming to me instantantly, in High Def, in wide screen, then I might get worried. For now, all the internet really has to offer is a continuous rotation of new blurry upskirt shots of Britney’s vagina.

When Britney’s vagina is in High Def, then I might get worried.

Captain TiVo wrote: When the internet can deliver programming to me instantantly, in High Def, in wide screen, then I might get worried.

THEN it will be too late.

I tried, folks. You can lead Captain TiVo to water but…

Thank goodness the leadership is able to see ten minutes into the future, even if Captain TiVo can’t.

Captain Tivo writes: When the internet can deliver programming to me instantantly, in High Def, in wide screen, then I might get worried.

Cap’ Tivo, get worried. It’s happening. It really isn’t this thing far, far off in the future. It’s reality. And it would be a mistake to table the issue ‘til after it’s in everyone’s home. We basically tabled it in the last contract negotiations. And if we wait four more years — big mistake. You think we’re dealing with posturing now. Wait ‘til it’s after the fact.

Ted: You are the legal maven on this thread, but my understanding from a labor lawyer friend is that if the contract has expired and the parties are at an impasse, then the most favored nations clause has no more legal bearing. If we were to keep working without a contract and still engage in negotiations, and the AMPTP made a deal with the DGA, then we might be able to invoke the MFN (because we would not be at impasse). BUT if we go on strike, we are by definition at an impasse, management could impose its last offer, and, if it later comes to terms with the DGA, then it need not match those same terms with us. In other words, once we go on strike, we lose the protection of the most favored nations clause. At least, that’s what my friend says. Do you disagree?

This just in, Anon anon. See the above post. Clifford Green: 0. Anonymous #19: 1. chadkerm: 1. Anon anon: a GIGANTIC 0.

Anonymous #19 —

Your labor lawyer friend says that if a union goes on strike, that means the negotiations are at an impasse, and the employer can unilaterally implement the final offer on the table? That what he says? Doesn’t mention anything about how before that happens, the union and the employer have to hold bargaining sessions under the auspices of a federal mediator, the union has to put the employer’s final offer to the membership for a ratification vote, the employer has to petition the National Labor Relations Board to declare an impasse, none of that? The employer just says, haha, they’re on strike, I win?

Your “labor lawyer friend” seems to have an interpretation of labor law that would thrill management, but they’d be insane to ever heed advice from such an obvous incompetent.

• Ted

——————>

Um— oh never mind.

Let’s just hug, Anonymous #19, and make up. Come on over here, you big galump.

The mountains to east must really isolate you guys in California. Tivo hasn’t caught on? DVD’s aren’t popular? At least you are all good at writing, because you stink with the technology.

Tivo as a brand may not be “doing great” on the NASDAQ but the fact is that the DVR technology is alive an kicking and continues to change the way people watch TV.Period.

Cable companies are in an uproar where I live because AT&T wants to come to town to provide “cable” service via a fiber optic delivered INTERNET SERVICE. Why are the cable companies upset?

It’s simple.

The cable companies have a deals with the cities that involve various fees (that help both the cities and the cable companies). Fiber-optic internet does not fall under that umbrella and the cable companies are crying foul because an internet service isn’t subject to the same rules as a cable service, yet they would be able to provide the same content. This is all about big money and it’s happening right now, not 10 years from now, in my quaint little suburb somewhere between Glendale and Hoboken.

Most of us know, Scott, however, there’s a shocking few that are still on dial-up here in LaLa land. It’s a forgone conclusion — the internet is an endless form of technology. And while it requires, research, study, learning curve, etc — IT ALSO REQUIRES A DEAL FOR WRITER’S CONTENT — PRONTO! Fiber optic transmission is moving at lightspeed.

Think my question has been swallowed up in the ultra-fast comment flood, I’ll give it another go - anyone can answer if they know, but this was originally for Craig or Ted:

If I get the chance to do a rewrite for an indie, non-WGA prodco in LA (I’m a UK non-WGA bloke), should I take it? I know the strike only covers WGA companies, but is there any unwritten rule or anything that would prohibit this?

Craig:

Thank God you started numbering the comments. Now I can follow along without remembering who the fuck said what to who…

Travis — you make some very cool points, and sound like a one cool dude. I don’t understand why you aren’t in the Guild yet. If only, if only… I’d love to see those SOBs sit across the table from a cool guy like you and try to take advantage of us. I hope to know you some day. You and I could have a cool drink. Two cool dudes downin’ some cold ones, we’ll be.

I second UK Bloke’s question.

What is likely to be the general feeling among striking writers toward non-guild writers who sell/take assignments from non-signatory companies in L.A.?

Yes, technically it’s allowed (I think), but is it ok from an emotional standpoint? Will we be looked upon as quasi scabs? Semi-strike breakers?

And on a related point… what if the non-signatory company has some kind of business relationship (via contract, first look, etc) to a signatory company? Does that put the non-sig automatically out-of-bounds for a non-WGA writer?

Wow, look at all these people lining up to be scabs!

Guys (and gals) — yeah, so you’ll be scabs on some crappy jobs now, but don’t you desire to advance and have a better — read Guild — job one day? Do you want that job to be worthless and have no benefits? No health, no pension, and in the worst-case scenario, no more Guild at all? Here’s a radical thought… HOW ABOUT SUPPORTING YOUR FELLOW WRITERS??!!! Thanks in advance!

UK Guy,

I guess we have our answer. No matter what the strike rules say or don’t say, if we do any writing job in this town during the strike, for any company, we’ll be vilified.

Strike F,

The whole point of asking the question was to avoid being a scab. I want to respect the strike, but I’m also trying to nurture a nascent writing career. As a non-member, I was hoping there was some way I could do both.

Looks like that was too much to hope for.

UK Bloke & Don’t Ban Me -

Nobody in the WGA is going to give a shit if you’re working a job that we aren’t allowed to work anyways (unless it’s new media related or reality tv, I guess) so write your indie movies. It ain’t going to bother me at least.

Complicated times indeed.

Craig: I respect your right to dissent even at a time when some say we must speak with one voice. And I use this as a prelude to dissent from something you said earlier. Uptop in post 41 you responded to a comment in post 39 by saying that a request at this point in time for an increase in the DVD rate was not realistic because it broke from a “pattern of bargaining.” But isn’t it the AMPTP who broke first from an even older pattern by threatening to revoke our residuals? Didn’t that re-open the issue of previous residual structures for debate? In other words, “Yeah — but they started it!”

Post #183 really says it all.

Why must this debate continue on endlessly?

Craig,

I love to hear that writers are being well paid. I’m thrilled you got seven figure for Superhero! Seriously.

But the problem I have is the timing of it. If you just got seven figures for doing Superhero, why did you also cut a deal to under cut your recent pay increase and take only 300,000? How much of that money was for directing and how much for writing?

And why were you just recently jumped up to seven figures just before a strike? (And then quickly dropped your quote?) How much did you get for your previous script?

Just curious.

JF

Jim Adler: Thanks for that, that’s good to know.

Strike Foraday: I’m fully in support of my fellow writers. Which is why I’m asking if it’s okay to take non-WGA work, even though technically it is supposedly fine. I’m asking my fellow writers if it’s okay to do it, which means that I’m happy to turn it down if said fellow writers think it’s not okay. If I didn’t care or support them, I’d have just taken the job without even worrying about it. And yes, I’d love to advance and have a Guild job. But me taking a non-WGA job now has no effect on the benefits in that future job, because it is a NON-WGA company, like I said. The whole reason I’m asking is because I don’t want to piss off my fellow writers. If I take the job, I’m not being a scab, because it’s a non-WGA company. But I want to make sure that I’m not stepping on toes or breaking some unwritten rules. Clearly you think I am, so thanks for your input, insulting as it was.

Anybody else? I really want to know what everyone thinks on this, as I know it’s a contentious issue.

Question here. Last night, I had dinner with some fellow writers and, of course, the conversation turned to the strike. There were five writers at the dinner. Three are currently staffed on various TV shows, one is currently unemployed, and one was a non-union writer — at the present, a writer’s assistant. (The union writers all agreed, by the way, they don’t want to strike, but are willing and voted yes. One of the writer’s had already put his house on the market.) My question is for the non-union writer. He is in the process of negotiating to write an indie for a non-sig. foreign company. He’s barely asking for scale to write. He considers it a “big break” for him and is very excited about it. However, he’s worried about the strike and his future with the WGA. Nobody quite knew how to advise him. Should he contact the WGA, at some point, and get counsel? Will it be frowned upon by the WGA? Will he hurt his chance at future guild membership? If he receives a commencement check before the potential strike can he begin writing and have no worries? He has no agent and it’s the kind of job he drummed up on his own and he’s an incredibly worried young writer. I took a look at the writer’s strike rules and the wording was such (or I’m just an idiot), that I couldn’t quite get a verdict. The answer seems like a yes, but no, well maybe…Any advice out there? Anyone else dealing with this? Much appreciated.

Kevin Williamson

J.F.:

You need help.

If you just got seven figures for doing Superhero, why did you also cut a deal to under cut your recent pay increase and take only 300,000? How much of that money was for directing and how much for writing?

I did the Fox deal because it gave me an opportunity to bet on myself in success. I take 300K up front, which is a serious reduction of my quote, but if the movie gets made, not only do I get my quote, but I also get 2.5% of first dollar gross on top of it. It’s higher risk, but higher reward.

When I talk about what I’m earning on Superhero!, I’m just talking about the writing. I get additional money to produce and direct.

And why were you just recently jumped up to seven figures just before a strike? (And then quickly dropped your quote?) How much did you get for your previous script?

It didn’t recently “jump” to seven figures. I made the deal for Superhero back in 2004, ya dingaling.

http://www.superheroflix.com/news/71/5271.php

Kev:

When the WGA strikes, it strikes against the companies it has deals with. At least, that’s my understanding.

If a company doesn’t have a deal with the WGA but operates in a “covered work area,” then members can’t write for it anyway.

But non-members can.

And I don’t see how a non-member writing for a non-signatory during a strike changes anything at all.

So from where I stand, I think he’d be fine.

If he calls the Guild, be prepared for them to basically say “No, you can’t write a letter to your mom during a strike.”

273

Craig, This question has been asked at least twice, but you haven’t answered it. (It’s possible you have and I missed it.

I’ve spend the last couple of days talking to some directors and asking them not to cross the picket line should there be a strike and I’ve noticed you’ve been asked that question here.

Are you going to cross the your own WGAw picket line should there be a strike?

And to that poster who mentioned contractual obligation to direct, that’s not the point. It’s the principle of supporting the strike or not. Other directors in the WGAw have said they wouldn’t cross. That’s tremedous leverage if the strike should occur.

Kevin Williamson

Other writers who write during the strike are scabs. Period. Just like Dan Marino called those two “heroic” NFL replacement players profiled on Inside the NFL this past Wednesday. Non-union players got a shot, but they were scabs.

I, for one, will lose a lot should we strike. And one thing the union helps with is minimums. Those minimums have saved many a writers’ livelihood over the years. New writers especially. Just like the NFL players who never forgot who crossed and who didn’t and what replacement players scabbed, I will do my best to enforce the Guild rules. Those writers who scab shouldn’t be allowed in the Guild. That’s my opinion and it’s rather harsh, but you asked. I’m sure there are others who, in this case, believe in amnesty for scabs. They can argue the other side. But morally, I stand on the side of let’s all stick together to make this work for everyone. Should there actually be a strike and should it be prolonged, everyone is going to suffer financially.

Craig, I hope I asked the question respectfully enough in post #266 about whether or not the AMPTP had somehow re-opened the pattern of bargaining with their no-more-residuals proposal. I ask because you seem to have the experience from your time on the Board to know the answer. Thanks.

Anonymous #274,

Did you read the question you were reacting to, by any chance? Non-union players who played for the NFL during a strike is not an apt analogy for a non-union writer who writes for a non-signatory company during a strike. Apples and carburetors, man. No picket line would be crossed. It’s more stating that non-union players not only can’t play for the NFL, but can’t play for a different league in a foreign country with completely different ownership. (And yeah, yeah, I know, that would make more sense if we were talking baseball or some other sport with an international presence, rather than American football, but hopefully you still see my point.)

…And admittedly, if the NFL players’ union were run by the WGA leadership, they’d no doubt insist that all football-related activities throughout the country, including Little League and neighborhood-pickup games, be suspended as a show of “solidarity.” But it wouldn’t be any of their business in that case, either.

I take exception with #276. If there is a strike, part of what we are striking for is expanded jurisdiction in reality, animation and basic cable. If these producers have no access to writers during a strike, I think that will hurt them more than help them. I think all writers need to stand with us now. If you’re a non-union writer, then you aspire to be one eventually, so support us now when we need you to. I admire the non-union writers who are asking us if we’d be uncomfortable with their working during a stirke. Unfortunately, for each of these moral souls there will be one who will be happy to not only take a non-signatory gig but probably even a signaotry gig.

The Guild is not even yet asking members to avoid writing for reality shows during the strike — and why not? This is a question that needs answering. They are willing to ask us not to do uncovered animation work, so why not come out and say, clearly, we prefer that NO MEMBERS DO ANY REALITY WRITING during this time because we are trying to gain jurisdiction in this area. Craig/Ted — are there NLRB reasons why they can’t say this? I’ll bet you more than half the people writing, producing or “producing” for reality shows are WGA members. This needs to stop the moment we walk out or I, for one, will consider them to be scabs. When people start losing their homes, there will not be a lot of tolerance for people going to work for AMPTP reality shows.

Solidarity,

The original question concerned writing for an indie film producer in a foreign country. I’m sorry I don’t see the connection there, but I don’t. Had the question concerned writing for reality TV (or “new media,” or any other realm in which the Guild was attempting to expand its jurisdiction, and was striking at least in part for that purpose), I’d agree with you. I also believe unequivocally that anyone who writes for a sig during a strike should be permanently blackballed—that should be a career-ender, period.

(Last thought: If there was a chance that the film produced by that indie production company might be picked up for distribution by one of the studios, thus potentially helping them to weather a strike better, then I might very well be talked out of my opinion. To be honest, I don’t know what the logistics of that question are—it seems unlikely to me that a project would go all the way from original script acquisition, through production and into release during the time frame of a single strike, but you never know with indie stuff, I s’pose. Can anyone enlighten me here?)

Has our guild asked the AMPTP to pull the rollbacks from the table?

Maybe the negotiations should go like this:

Pat: You pull rollbacks, we pull dvd resids. Nick: Fine. Pat: 2.5 on new media. Nick: 1.5. Pat: 1.8 Nick: Deal.

Seems simple and it is… the only thing holding us back is politics, ego, and fear. I can’t support a union that is as ridiculous as the management we’re fighting. Our guild needs to show sanity before we give them the loaded gun.

As Dr. Seuss once said, ” Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple.”

Unfortunately, Nick flubbed one of his lines up above there. I’m pretty sure the script says “0.3”, not “1.5”.

Oh, I’m sorry. His copy of the script, in fact, says “0.0”.

Nice thought otherwise, though.

I’ve spend the last couple of days talking to some directors and asking them not to cross the picket line should there be a strike and I’ve noticed you’ve been asked that question here. Are you going to cross the your own WGAw picket line should there be a strike? And to that poster who mentioned contractual obligation to direct, that’s not the point. It’s the principle of supporting the strike or not. Other directors in the WGAw have said they wouldn’t cross. That’s tremedous leverage if the strike should occur.

Yes, if we strike on November 1st, I will absolutely cross the picket line to continue directing my film.

I am not only a member of the WGAw, but the DGA as well. I am working under a valid CBA through the DGA. If I fail to show up for work as a director on November 1st, not only will I successfully be sued for breach of contract, but I hurt my other union (the DGA), and I hurt the hundreds of crew members and their families relying on my production for a salary.

I honor my commitments.

I have a commitment to not write during a writer’s strike. I will honor it.

I have a commitment to direct a film. I will honor it.

Any feature film director who tells you he won’t show up for work directing a feature film for a studio is either a liar, a lunatic or an idiot.

I should add…

…there’s a reasonable principled stance to be made where directors refuse to take on new work. I get that.

But quitting in the middle of a production?

No way. Immoral.

Uptop in post 41 you responded to a comment in post 39 by saying that a request at this point in time for an increase in the DVD rate was not realistic because it broke from a “pattern of bargaining.” But isn’t it the AMPTP who broke first from an even older pattern by threatening to revoke our residuals? Didn’t that re-open the issue of previous residual structures for debate? In other words, “Yeah — but they started it!”

A good question.

My understanding is that they didn’t break the pattern per se. They interpreted the language of the formula in a particular way from the very start.

In other words, they believed the deal language of the pattern protected their ability to define gross a certain way, and we strongly disagreed.

If they had ever paid us 1.2% of 100%, then yes, you’d have at least a good intellectual argument to make.

Dear Mr. Seth M. Lochhead (“SML”),

I am glad that you are not a gutless coward like I am, and that you are willing to provide us with a name and a link to your blog, because this means that you will now be blackballed by the writers, writer-directors and writer-director-producers in the WGA.

Your blog is entitled “Vanity is My Only Child.” Wow. That’s like saying Yao Ming’s mother only has one child. Usually when someone in Hollywood has such a big ego, they have something to back it up with, like a Sorkin for example. From what I can see you have sold one feature, which despite your many protestations to the contrary, seems to be considered by the trades and others to be nothing more than a “reverse spin” on The Professional.

But I guess that gives you the right to assume that you’re the smartest guy in show business and that everyone else - especially the people leading the Guild right now - are so stupid that they didn’t see the easy answer to this that was right in front of their noses the whole time! I sure hope they call you so we can get this all wrapped up before I have to start worrying about whether I’ll be able to pay my son’s college next semester.

You say, “I can’t support a union that is as ridiculous as the management we’re fighting.” It is seriously mind-blowing to think about your lack of awareness and your inability to analyze a situation and come away with a reasonable assessment of it.

I think that for your sake and for the sake of the handful of members who feel the way you do, you should go to the informational meeting at the Beverly Hilton on Tuesday at 7 p.m. and ask your questions of the leaders themselves. They have so far been extremely courteous and willing to answer any and all questions from the membership and they will, in a far more polite way than I ever could, explain to you why things are not that simple. Perhaps this will not persuade you, but don’t you at least owe it to both yourself and to them to at least let them hear your elegant solution?

I’m not going to delete the above comment, but I have to ask…is there really any reason to attack people’s credits in here? I’ve met some idiots with fantastic credits, and I’ve met some people I thought were brilliant with no credits.

It’s not like writing movies and negotiating labor contracts are traditionally overlapping disciplines.

Attack positions, but leave the ad hominem stuff off the board, please.

Hey, you’re right. But you don’t need to assume I can’t accept a civil correction. My NFL analogy wasn’t perfect and you are correct in stating the obvious flaws.

I guess my point is that while my finances go down the drain to protect jurisdiction and MBA minimums and health and pension, I would appreciate it if all screenwriters stood together. Hell, I’d love it if those who supported labor rights stopped watching TV or going to movies! But that’s a dream and I know it.

The real point is that non-union writers who writer for sigs are scabs and should not be allowed in the WGAw. Of course, from what I hear, the sigs won’t hire scabs, at least, unless a decision is made to break the unions.

So the question becomes what about non-union writers writing for non-sigs? A much tougher question than WGAw writers writing for non-sigs (who don’t ask for a waiver) because that’s already illegal.

Anyway, at the very least it’d be nice to be supported by the other Hollywood unions. If they don’t cross the picket lines, than everything comes to a standstill and this ridiculous idea of production during the strike can be put to bed.

Anonymous:

Anyway, at the very least it’d be nice to be supported by the other Hollywood unions. If they don’t cross the picket lines, than everything comes to a standstill and this ridiculous idea of production during the strike can be put to bed.

The above is impossible. Each union has a “no strike, no lockout” clause in their CBA. The other unions couldn’t honor our picket lines even if they wanted to.

Well, before Craig gets dogpiled for his stance on continuing to direct, I’d like to add a note of support to him.

I get really irked when people start spouting “solidarity” as an alternative to “thought” or “principles.” Being on strike gives you the right, indeed the moral obligation, to refuse to honor any contract to render services covered by that strike. It does not grant the right to do any damned thing you feel like and call it solidarity.

Say you did some work for a production company earlier this month, and they owe you a check on November 2nd. If we strike on November 1st, should they refuse to pay you, because they need to show “solidarity” with their fellow AMPTP members? Would you be swayed by their argument if they did so?

Breaching a contract made under the auspices of a not-yet-striking union is a good way to end a career in the name of symbolism. Beyond that, it’s nothing but pointless symbolism. In Craig’s case, the script for his film is written. If he stops showing up on set, two weeks before a probable writers’ strike, do you think the studio will a) abandon the movie, because they have no incentive to finish as many films as they can at a time like this, after all; or b) replace Craig in about eight seconds flat with some other director who’s not a writer, and shoot the damned thing anyway?

You know, part of that whole “respect” thing that we’re always agitating for involves not behaving like spoiled children and thinking with our feelings when we’re under pressure. Craig, I predict you’ll take a lot of shit over this issue, but I think you’re on the side of the angels here.

<< Any feature film director who tells you he won’t show up for work directing a feature film for a studio is either a liar, a lunatic or an idiot. >>

This is one case where you should some homework first. Through private talks, some very high profile directors have said they would not cross the picket line. Period. They are WGAw members. (Talk to Patrick.)

I hope you change your mind should there be a strike. You’re support would be much appreciated.

<< there’s a reasonable principled stance to be made where directors refuse to take on new work. I get that.

But quitting in the middle of a production?

No way. Immoral.>>

Everyone defines their own morality. So, with respect, please allow me to disagree. People who support the reasons for a strike will walk off jobs even if they’re in the middle of them. It’s been that way for a century.

And, in terms of letting all those people down, that was John Bowman’s very point in the last meeting. A lot of people are going to get hurt and so are we. We don’t do this because we want to. We have to.

Also, like the other guy, I managed to talk an A.D. on a huge film starting in January (okay so the other guy talks to directors, I’m working my way up,) that he should consider not crossing the picket line. He saw the moral argument of supporting labor. I don’t know what he’ll do, but there are people out there who will support the writers. Maybe, even some people on your crew. You could ask them.

Please, at least consider, writers. You are one. If someone actually knows Craig, talk to him in person!

Just out of curiosity, how would a WGA ban on scabs post-strike work anyway? Say someone who scabs writes a spec and a signatory wants to buy it. The WGA can’t prevent this. Or, for that matter, prevent someone from being staffed on a show or getting a writing assignment. So what does banning someone actually mean? No health care / pension / residual checks?

I’d be surprised if any working writer gave Craig shit about showing up to continue directing his movie after a WGA strike. I don’t even think it’s a gray area. If he’s not writing, he’s doing nothing wrong.

From I read, 290, only in the event of strike, should the picket line be honored. No one is asking Craig to abandon his movie before the strike! And I get the contract aspect of this. That’s in all union contacts. It’s part of management’s way of divide and conquer. But when one labor using supports another, historically, they don’t cross the picket line regardless of that clause. Of course, in recent years, one union crossing another’s picket line has become more commonplace. But the WGA, the DGA and SAG are birds of a feather in many ways. If rollbacks start now, they’re going to hit everyone.

294—

You’re right, I should have said “once the strike begins,” not “two weeks before.” That made no sense.

With that substitution made, however, I think the argument still holds. Refusing to fulfill his contractual obligation as a director would neither hurt the studio in any meaningful way, nor help the Guild in any meaningful way. And that’s entirely apart from the principle of the thing….

295, This is just my take on it and nothing more. I think directors who didn’t cross the picket line would hurt studios. They’re pipeline would dry up. I can’t tell you how many execs are talking up their pre-strike movies like it’s going to crush the WGAw strike. Well, if we have a WGAw strike, and, if directors honored the picket line, there would be no pre-strike movies (by the way, pre-strike would then mean pre-SAG strike.)

But the idea is that all production would should down. My humble belief is that would get both sides to come to some kind of agreement.

Are people using “crossing a picket line” to mean physically walking past Guild members demonstrating against a specific struck Company to go to work, or are they using it in a more general sense to mean, simply, “continuing to work for a struck Company”?

I got the feeling at one of the informational meetings that it was being used simultaneously in both senses. I’m getting the same feeling here, as well.

• Ted

Derek, I’m a working writer. I’ve even re-written you and our partner once. By the way, I’m also a big fan of you and your partners work. Hey, I took the re-write because they wanted to go in a different direction!

Anyway, back on point, I’m a working writer who does care if Craig and other directors make films during the strike. I hope they stand with writers and say, let’s settle this thing. Like another comment on here, I understand that some of them are going to stand with the writers should it come to that.

Also, at the 11th outreach meeting, two showrunners I spoke also agreed.

But, in the end, it’s not going to be up to me and you, it’s up to the directors themselves.

Craig has taken his position. Maybe someone will be able to pursuade him to change his mind in the event of an actual strike.

BTW, though there are a minority of dissenting opinions on this board, most people will support Craig if history holds true. You may want to ask your fellow writers at the next outreach meeting how they feel about this issue and take the temperature yourself. After your comment, I’ve taken a step back to email and ask more of my fellow guild members. At the meeting on the 11th, I’d say the “working writers” support this position with the exception of the newest members of the guild.

I agree that refusing to direct would hurt the studios. I just don’t agree that the directors (who have already signed contracts) have any legal right to do that.

If some big-name (or even medium-sized-name) directors were to refuse to take any new assignments until all this is settled, and say so publicly, that would help immensely, I suspect. Drying up the pipeline would be a great thing. I just think that breaking already-negotiated legal agreements is a poor way to convince anyone to negotiate further legal agreements with you in good faith. Which is what we’re ultimately trying to accomplish, after all.

Fair enough, Anonymous of Post #298. Anonymous P. of post #299 gave a better context to my post. I’ll gauge the temperature myself as well. I certainly understand the sentiment of not taking NEW directing work in the event of a WGA strike, however.

“Anyway, at the very least it’d be nice to be supported by the other Hollywood unions. If they don’t cross the picket lines, than everything comes to a standstill and this ridiculous idea of production during the strike can be put to bed.”

That would be a wonderful thing, wouldn’t it? Can you imagine how things would be if all of our CBA’s expired, and were renegotiated at the same time?

To expect the IA to honor the WGA’S physical picket lines might be a stretch, above and beyond the “no strike” clause in our contract, as the taste of the WGA trying to raid MPEG’s juristiction for TV editors on reality shows is still pretty fresh for the IATSE Int’l., not to mention MPEG.

Up until a couple weeks ago wasn’t the plan that the DGA, SAG, and WGA would all strike at the same time?

It seems that if this sort of solidarity was really wanted, all that needs to happen is to let the contract run out, then participate in the walk-out together when the SAG and DGA contracts came up.

Anonymous P:

Remember that show “Friends” and how after the first year or two when it was clear what a monster hit it was, the six star decided to ask for a lot more money — EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD FIVE YEAR CONTRACTS? my point — people break, ignore, violate their contract terms all the time. IT’S CALLED BUSINESS.

If you’ve never had a studio or network not pay you money that you had contractually earned then you haven’t really worked in show business. For you or Craig or anyone to claim this has anything to do with “moral” behavior is a laugh. Let everyone do what they’re comfortable with, sure, but stop treating studio contracts like they’re objects of honor — because that’s just naive.

None of you would stop writing to help out the DGA if they went on strike and we we’re operating as usual.

We’re? Shit.

Anonymous You:

Your point would hold water if:

1. Reopening contracts wasn’t common industry practice for stars on hit sitcoms, and

2. You were talking about a collective bargaining agreement, rather than the six stars of a megahit show.

Again, I have to reiterate: saying “I won’t TAKE a directing job” during a writers strike is one thing. Saying “I’m going to LEAVE my directing job” during a writers strike is another.

I don’t think the latter happened in 1988. I don’t expect it to happen in 2007.

Craig,

is it true you have hella money? if so, why?

don’t you think that inherently writers who are successful are sellouts who only care for themselves?

I bet you and your A-List friends don’t invest any time or energy helping other writers the way all us struggling writers do. we’re always helping each other out.

imo, only writers who are struggling have valid opinions.

BTW, the whole point of waiting to strike on Nov 1 instead of, say, right now, or when we get approval on Oct. 18, is because of contracts. The whole thinking behind working under an extension until the SAG and DGA contracts expire is because…you guessed it, that’s when their contracts expire. Or else SAG and DGA could just declare a strike on Nov 1 as well. And this is why Craig the Director should continue directing, until the DGA declares a strike. I believe the government could even intervene and force you back to work if you walked out in violation…not sure about that one though.

Mike said: I believe the government could even intervene and force you back to work if you walked out in violation…not sure about that one though.

Yes, the Russian government could but not the American one.

(He could get sued for damages; people can’t be forced to work in the United States. How odd for someone to think that, though.)

It’s a beautiful day. Why don’t all you people get outisde — or at least go write something.

Fascinating, Yeesh, considering that the post right above yours comes from the same IP address.

Yeesh, Anonymous You, Flabber Gasted, Solidarity Not Hollowarity, Dissenter Too, Strike Foraday, Not Anonymous, Wondering, Not Clifford Green, Glendon, HatesBadSatire, member, Working Stiff, Vito Scotti, androgynous, Ken Tucky, Chicken S., no seven fig for me, wga member/drone, gotcha, anonymouse and Noah Brainah.

All the same troll.

Yes. Go outside. Enjoy the day.

Anon You,

Anyone who’s ever signed a deal with a monkey-points provision has, in all probability, not been paid money that they were contractually owed. As has everyone who’s ever been asked to do seven rewrites and pretend it was two. And yadda and yadda and etc.

Those and a hundred other standard grievances would be wonderful subjects for our union to tackle on our behalf. (Though perhaps not during this round of bargaining….) In my experience, individuals who try to fight back as individuals against specific manifestations of a collective, industrywide screwing system just get stomped. And the world rolls on just as before, without them.

So that’s the practical flaw in your theory.

Beyond that…if you don’t see any moral or ethical component to breaking a promise you’ve freely made, well, I doubt I’ll ever convince you otherwise. If you want to prove that you, personally, can be as big a scumbag as anyone in the AMPTP, that’s certainly your decision to make as well. But pardon me if I choose not to race you to the bottom.

Becoming known for breaching contracts whenever it suits you seems like a, exceptionally poor path to long-term employment, regardless of what the people signing the checks are getting away with.

Damn, Craig, wish you’d told me that about a minute sooner…. :)

Now the question is.. what’s the IP and where’s it located and from what domain?

Time for a fresh story?

AYAAW

Flabber (286),

Yao Ming is an only child…? Oh, I get it… stating the obvious… because of china’s one child policy… nice one.

You’re funny. You should write for a living… or am I stating the obvious?

Seth M. Lochhead, a good looking man. Emphasis on MAN.

Seth,

Not being able to read words and understand, through context and circumstance, what they mean?

You should be a producer.

—s

PS, also to Seth, are you trying to be a writer for SNL? because you’re recycling your own jokes.

Flabber/Sean,

Are you posting under your own name now? I’m impressed.

In 316, were you asking me a question or was that an exclamation?

If you’re asking: am I able to read words and understand, through context and circumstance, what they mean?

Sometimes. Not always.

But the real question is are you able to write coherently enough for me to understand what you’re trying to say?

P.S. (317) Practice makes perfect. Go practice.