Why I'm (Unfortunately) Voting YES

Craig,

I finally understand the “yes is the only answer” rationale.

Do you think, if we go out, we’d be more likely to wait for the actors or go Nov 1?

Authorizing use of force to get the other side to take us seriously, even though we didn’t really want to go to war, has proven such a good strategy lately…

Seriously, so much work is being done painting the AMPTP demands as unreasonable, saying how we’re being forced to take this action, they won’t move…

Look at our demands. Number one: DOUBLE DVD residuals. Which means they have to double the DGA’s and SAG’s (and SAG’s are 3x ours). How many hundreds of millions of dollars a year would our first demand cost?

Our number four demand? Organizing reality. Which ain’t happening - especially since we announced loudly that we were doing it so we could pose a more effective strike threat.

And we’ve been backed into this corner by the unyielding crazy position they’re taking.

We are being led into the strike by the people who are still pissed about losing the DVD/Videocassette fight twenty years ago. They think they’re going to win it this time. And again, if you think that’s crazy… look at our demands and what the leadership decided should come first. Not internet. DVDs.

Vote no. I’ll take a hamstrung guild over a suicidal guild.

Dear Craig,

Thanks for coming out so quickly in support of the strike authorization — whatever your reasoning.

Best,

C…

Anonymous, Ted, or Craig, or anyone else,

Just to hear the other side, is there any theory on how a “no” vote could help?

Even if the leaders are crazy, is there any way, in simple terms, anyone can see how you walk into a negotiation and say, “we want to talk about dividing up money, but we are not willing to fight for a piece of it?”

Isn’t a negotiation based on leverage? And at this juncture, isn’t a willingness to strike our only real leverage?

Craig: An excellent analysis as always, and yet you reached the exact wrong conclusion dictated by your reasoning. I’m voting against strike authorization, and here’s why. I voted for every strike authorization request for the last thirty years, for all the reasons you mentioned. But I trusted those leaders to be level-headed and mature, and I just don’t trust this group the same way. They’re too much like the Bush crowd, determined from day one to start a war, just to show the world how tough they are. Well, one of the problem with wars is you can decide when to start them, but you don’t get to decide when to finish them. Make no mistake, these guys WANT to go to war, and will bully, spin, shade, and withhold just to get there. Saying that it’s not really a call to strike, but just a tool to help our negotiating committee is kidding yourself — Bush told Congress he needed the war authorization to help his diplomatic efforts, which proved to be nonexistent. I think we need to look at this authorization vote as just that — a vote to authorize this Board to call a strike when it wants. Are we really ready to strike after five days of negotiations? Before we have engaged in any back-and-forth, and before we even know management’s final offer? And is striking really the best response to an unacceptable offer, as opposed to working without a contract? I would feel a lot better voting yes if we had been negotiating all along and I thought the leadership were serious about making a deal. A few months from now I would rather be Robert Byrd than Hillary or Kerry or Edwards or all the other Democrats who voted to give Bush that authority and then came to regret it. But more than that, I would rather the decision be in the hands of people looking out for the members rather than looking to settle old scores. Since I don’t believe that will happen with the current leadership, I’m voting no. One other thing. On another post someone wondered why so many people are posting anonymously. The current leadership does not brook dissent lightly. Look at what Phil Robinson and Tom Schulman did to Jeff Kleeman, who had the audacity to suggest having a different set of eyes on the Board. A strike authorization vote is a divisive matter — twenty-two years later, the Union Blues of 1985 are still vilified for splitting the Guild. If the leadership’s tactics fail, as they will, anyone opposing them at any point along the way will be blamed. I for one don’t want to put up with that. It is sad that disagreement is so intolerable in a union of writers, but that’s where we are these days. And so, you have anonymous posts by myself and others who question where this current group is taking us.

Great post. Though I’m not a member or even sold as of yet, I know what it’s like to be under-appreciated. As a SW developer, I go through the same things with the powers that be pretending that we who are in the trenches are not the key to their financial success. I just wish there were a union for developers.

But I can say that YES, YOU GUYS SHOULD STRIKE. November 1st.

What I’ve seen of the AMPTP offer is insulting.

It’s like they’re saying; “yeah, you are doing the work for free nearly until we get our money, but hey my pool boy is just dying to get his 4 headed chicken mutant movie into production so we don’t even need you.”

So, don’t wait for the others. They can’t work without writers either. Strike Strike Strike!!

To Malcolm and Craig and anyone else who wonders what is to be gained from a “no” vote (aside from keeping the gun away from folks looking eager to use it): Let’s go back to the Bush-Iraq analogy. Although a vote against the war authorization would have produced cries of “treason” and “appeasement,” if there had been significant opposition at the time Bush might have worked harder for a diplomatic resolution, either bilaterally or with allies and the U.N. If those efforts had failed, he could still have come back and tried again to convince the Congress that war was the answer. Instead the resolution passed, and Bush et al. felt they had carte blanche to bomb away. If this strike authorization vote fails, I would interpret it as saying to the negotiating committee and Board, “we want you to go back and try harder to make a deal. We don’t think we’re ready to strike, based on what we know now.” I don’t think management would interpret this as weakness and a green-light to go ahead and low-ball the guild — they’re already doing that now. I think management would interpret it as saying the members want serious negotiations, not a sumo match. And, management will understand that if we don’t get serious negotiations from them, the members will consider all options after the contract expires, including a strike. A “no” vote, in other words, would produce more serious negotiations, something that seems out of the question with the current approach.

Very well said, Anonymous #1. I agree with everything you’ve posted so far, including, sadly, the reasons for remaining anonymous.

“Though I’m not a member or even sold as of yet

…

I can say that YES, YOU GUYS SHOULD STRIKE. November 1st.”

Jesus.

My lead is out sick today, so I’m cooling my heels.

This whole “I’m not in your union, but strike strike strike” thing is just nuts. That’s not at all what this is about. Christian, I’m sorry, but your view is a bit ignorant of our realities.

Anonymous #1:

That’s a very well-argued position, and I find myself nodding along with most of it. The problem is that I do feel that a “no” vote here does, essentially, make us irrelevant. A “no” vote ensures that our negotiations are completely over, and in turn, probably weakens SAG’s hand as well. After all, if we can’t get an authorization, then a lot of actors are going to figure they can’t get one either.

The danger, however, is exactly as you’ve stated. It’s the sort of dilemma the Soviets faced with Reagan.

Is he nuts? Or is he an actor playing a nut?

Craig, what about Anonymous #1’s point that if by some miracle the membership votes down the current SAV, the leadership might be forced to at least attempt genuine negotiations, and if and when that truly fails, they can ask for another SAV. In that scenario, I and probably many others who intend to vote “no” this time would vote “yes.”

If the leadership could only ask for a SAV one time, I would be more inclined to at least consider offering my reluctant assent. But that’s not the case, and I think it’s time the membership forced Patric & co. to approach the AMPTP with something other than a battle cry, especially when even with 100% dedication on our part, we are very unlikely to be the victors if and when it truly comes to war.

Anonymous, you wrote — “I don’t think management would interpret this as weakness and a green-light to go ahead and low-ball the guild — they’re already doing that now.”

I think the gist of what you’re saying is correct but it’s no longer viable. We started off saying that ‘we don’t wanna strike’ but now Patric has escalated. Patric has jumped foreward to the part of your statement when you said “And, management will understand that if we don’t get serious negotiations from them, the members will consider all options after the contract expires, including a strike.”

It’s done. We’re there. We’ve played that card.

But now we’ve played it. I don’t think we can unplay it.

Our leader, who represents us has walked into a room full of studio suits and said, “listen guys, I’m gonna show you that me and my guild are serious by calling for strike authorization.”

If we vote no, i still don’t see how we’re not telling the studios, “yo’, I don’t know who that guy is negotiating for us, but he’s a clown and we’re not willing to back his demands.”

Anonymous (not #1):

Leadership’s main focus is internet download residuals. The rest is window dressing, and everyone knows it.

If we vote “no,” that won’t change. Neither will the companies’ position, which is currently “No internet download residuals…and no traditional residuals for anything, while we’re talking about it.” We’re as far apart as we can be. Less leverage won’t bring us closer together. It will simply embolden the other side to remain tough.

My feeling is that leadership should NOT have asked for this vote at this time. They should have waited until after the contract expired. This was a strategic error, IMO, but now that they’ve made it, there’s nothing that can be legitimately gained by a “no” vote, and much that can be lost.

It’s natural to compare the Guild’s strike authorization vote to Congress’ Iraq War authorization vote. But it may be more accurate to compare it to the TWO Iraq War authorization votes held by the UN (the ones the French insisted on that so drove the Bush administration crazy): the first was a threat of war and the second was the actual trigger. I don’t want to belabor the simile, but I believe the SAV is a threat, a bargaining tactic, but that it doesn’t necessarily contain the actual trigger. If the negotiations actually and irrevocably break down, then I believe the leadership will come back to the rank and file before proceeding with the strike—in other words, they would hold the raucous “big meeting” Craig wrote about. I have no actual evidence of this, but it seems to me that a simple strike declaration by our leaders would be insufficient to fire the membership’s resolve.

“If the negotiations actually and irrevocably break down, then I believe the leadership will come back to the rank and file before proceeding with the strike—in other words, they would hold the raucous “big meeting” Craig wrote about.”

If they get 90%+ strike authorization, they aren’t coming back for anything. These are the people who call 1500 votes out of 8000 an overwhelming mandate.

This is it. If it’s a “yes,” this is our vote.

I’m another one of the not-a-fabulous-WGA-member people (sorry).

In fact, I’m not even a writer, although I do work for them: I’m just an assistant, and if they strike and our show shuts down, I’m 99% sure my paychecks will stop appearing. Because I’m a genius, I only just figured this out. Cue complete internal panic.

As a bit of a pinko-liberal, I support workers’ rights blah blah blah, let me break out the Woody Guthrie. I’m ashamed to admit that I’ve previously been one of the lame types who secretly thinks that strikes are kinda cool and romantic.

But with the talk around the office, my cheerful naivete about what it actually means to strike has been pierced. As tense as I am about my immediate financial future, I can’t imagine what this is like for people who have not just paychecks but the future of their careers riding on it.

Obviously, I have nothing to contribute, but it’s very interesting to watch you guys work through a tough decision, and I wish you the best of luck with making your voting choices, and with whatever comes after that.

First off, Craig, e-mail me the new office address. I’m sitting on your start gift.

Look at our demands. Number one: DOUBLE DVD residuals. Which means they have to double the DGA�s and SAG�s (and SAG�s are 3x ours). How many hundreds of millions of dollars a year would our first demand cost?

Although Craig points out that it’s really about internet, I actually fall stronger on getting the money out of DVD’s. As the media theory geek ‘round here, I think that there are plenty of years left where DVD’s will be the primary income stream over internet downloads.

And what positively boggles me, to some extent, is the attitude in the above post. Yes, that would cost them hundred of millions of dollars. Of OUR MONEY. These are the stakes you play for in the media business now. Should we just go for tens of millions? Hundreds of thousands? What’s an inoffensive number? No, the principled stand is that the studios have broken off a chunk of the revenue stream, not only in the contract but also in the accounting — DVD numbers are harder to get than Jessica Alba’s panties, and there’s plenty of incidental evidence from producers I know to support the idea that the acoounting’s wonky — and it’s time to make it right, either in current or future revenue streams.

This, again, is to help supprt the middle class working writer. Fabulously successful writers do just fine on their script fees, and baby writers scrape by. There’s a lot of evolution coming down on media production and distribution, and things will get hairy, but this is one of the support beams we have to set into place now.

jonrog1:

Wait, the WGA membership didn’t ratify the deal that sets the current percentage? That’s our money? They stole it?

This is really serious. We should contact the FBI. They’re stealing our money!

I wish we had more. But it’s certainly not our money. And I’ll tell you one more thing - we’re not getting any more of their money, and if a lot of people share the belief that striking will change that, I’m frightened.

Malcolm —

The only possible benefit a “no” might have is to let the AMPTP know that there are some individual members who understand the benefit to managemetn of labor peace.

I was going to post something along this lines in response to “Anyonymous P.” in the other thread, but I’ll post it here insted:

The primary benefit, to management, of the collective bargaining process is labor peace. A period of sustained, stable productivity, bracketed at regular intervals by the negotiation/strike process — which, becuase they are at regular intervals, can be calculated and planned for.

This is where “corporate campaiging” comes in. “Corporate campaigns” — which are, more accurately, anti-corporate campaigns (PR spin there) — is an umbrella term that covers virtually all of the activities the Guild has engaged in for the last two years, from the suberservient donald viral videos to the unity rally to Patric’s testimony to the FCC to the recent Temptation fandango. Corprate campainging was developed by unions as an alternative to the negotiating/strike process, and it purpose is to wage “labor war,” if you will, against non-union employers, with the goal being to get the employer to sue for labor peace, by entering into the traditional negotiation/strike process.

Corporate campaigning can sometimes be effective during the negotiation/strike interval itself — when labor peace is already destabalized — but to the same purpose: to leverage an employer to sue for labor peace by entering into a new contract.

But, for the last two years, the Guild has been using corporate campaign tactics against Companies who have already entered into the traditional negotiation/strike process with us, who arleady have contracts with us — not because they are delightful people with love in their hearts for all mankind, but because they wanted (and continue to want, natch) the primary benefit (to management) of that process: labor peace.

Regardless of the effectiveness (or, mostly, not) of our corporate campaigning, simply by dint of doing it, we — meaning WGA members collectively, since we elected this leadership and turn out in support of the battles that require a “ground element” — we have demonstrated that we are not interested in labor peace; that the AMPTP will not see the primary benefit of their bargaining with us, even outside the negotiation/strike interval.

Which means — from their point of view — that we have no truck with at least half of the process that results in labor peace: negotiation.

But, they tested that: they came to us last fall, and said “Are you interested in negotiation?” We said, no, we can’t be prepared until January at the soonest. They came back in January and said “Are you interested in negotaition now?” We said, no, in fact, we’re so disinterested, we didn’t even make preparations. But we’ll be interested in summer. Summer comes, and the AMPTP puts two proposals on the table for negotiation, and our openining position is … “No.” As in: we are not interested in negotiating. We, of course, have our pattern of demands — but there’s enough pecularities in them that they signal a lack of serious interest in negotiation on our part.

At the same time, our actions to organize Temptation yet again demonstrated no interest in negotiations (capitulation by the Company, yes; negotaition, no).

Anyway, the point is: if the AMPTP cannot see the benefit of labor peace from us as a result of collective bargaining, and we show no serious interest in bargaining … then what is their incentive to bargain with us?

Labor war is a foregone conclusion, because we have been waging labor war for two years. The only thing that might signal that we are interested in negotiating to peace would be if members collectively refused to authorize the Board to call a strike … but there’s no chance that enough members individually will refuse (and, there’s not. Although people talk abou the need for 90% strike vote to send a message, it’s not necessary to acttually strike — in 1980-1, the Guild went out on a 68% strike vote, and stayed out for three months).

So, that’s my analysis: ultimately, there’s really no way a “no” vote can help, because for the last two-plus years, up to and including right now, the Guild has made it clear there will be no labor peace, demanding capitulation, rather than negotiation.

• Ted

Craig, I didn’t mean to sound rabid at all. I just know what it’s like to be undervalued and I wish I could convince SW developers to do the same thing. I realize that it’s more complicated, but I think that if the stories of the distance between the parties is accurate, there will not be a settlement by Oct 31, in which case I don’t see the necessity for waiting for the other unions as they will be negotiating for themselves, not the WGA.

After all, writers are the backbone of the industry, though it doesn’t seem like it the way everyone else is heralded while writers sometimes don’t even get invited to their own premiers.

Hopefully you can understand that as a new writer, I don’t want to have a pile of scripts sitting around hoping the strike will end quickly after Jun 08. I know that very few people are even accepting new material at this point as limbo may be the order of the day for them.

I have read the MBA and Constitution and I am interested in the struggle as if I would have to walk out.

I’ll just say in closing, I hoep a strike isn’t necessary and that everything gets back to “normal” quickly.

BTW, congrats on SuperHeroes.

Is it just me or do several of the “anonymous” posters read like studio plants? Sorry to highjack the topic at hand for a moment but sometimes you gotta point out the obvious. If you work for a studio please just say so. I don’t think anyone would mind hearing your POV on how we should vote. Make your arguments. Shill away. But please don’t hide behind the “anonymous” tag when doing it. Thanks.

Okay. Back to the debate. And for what its worth I’m planning on voting “yes.” I wasn’t so sure at first. But Craig, thanks to your game theory argument, I’m convinced. And I’m not holding my nose when I vote. I’m bending over.

This is slightly off topic, but I’m curious about the make-up of the AMPTP, since, like those of WGA members, studios’ economic interests aren’t coextensive with each other. Some studios will have more riding on non-strike-resistant tentpole pictures than others, some will have stockpiled more, some will be more in the TV business than features (thus, I’m pretty sure, making them more vulnerable to a November 1-ish walkout). Anyone have a sense of this? Aaron Mendelsohn? Craig?

I’m voting “yes,” too, for the reasons stated… I’m sure it has been mentioned, but I’ve attended several “outreaches” over the last few years, including a one on one with Dave Weiss — well one on two if you count my partner — and he told me a few years ago if we don’t bring reality writers into the fold, then our strike threat will lack serious credibility, because the WGA used to cover 98% of television production and now covers a much smaller percentage. Well, we haven’t brought reality “writers” into the fold in that time, but yesterday’s email signals they think a strike would, in fact, be effective, right? So what changed? What information do they have now they didn’t have three years ago? And how long will it take for a strike to be effective in light of not bringing in reality writers?

I just wish the effin’ forum here worked. It hasn’t since last night. Christ…

Can we try and have this conversation without involving the Bush/Iraq scenario? I understand that there is a slight parallel, but this is a wholly different issue — and I don’t think any of you can say that the WGA is “lying” about what the AMPTP is threatening — their “weapon of mass destruction” was put on the table in the form of a residual rollback. Stop trying to force everything into the “Bush sucks” paradigm. You do your opinion (and this debate) a disservice.

Victor:

The forum is and has been working fine, so there may be some issue on your end if you’re having problems accessing it…

If you want to vote no but don’t have the guts to, then at least don’t vote at all and deny the lunatics at 3rd and Fairfax anything vaguely resembling a mandate.

As for fearing retribution from other members in your own guild for expressing an unpopular view…that’s the best reason I’ve heard for going fi-core. For a bunch of people who decry the old “Hollywood Blacklist” it sounds as if the real and ongoing blacklist is and has been from the left and not the right.

For those writers here who don’t have the courage to use their real names, how far do you bend over when you take notes from the producer’s assistant?

Again…if you don’t have the guts to vote no, then don’t vote at all.

Ted -

That’s a really good, if disheartening, analysis of our ‘strategy’ and tactics leading up to this point. Perhaps there are members who still don’t see our choices this way but everyone on the other side does.

Derek. This is just a stab at what might have changed with regards to reality TV now versus three years ago. The reality fad has leveled out since then. Reality TV, while here to stay, isn’t so novel anymore and the studios now know that it doesn’t generate nearly as much revenue as a monster hit scripted show. Sure its cheaper to produce, but you can’t syndicate reality. And you can’t really sell it overseas. Maybe you can sell the format. But not the actual show. Just a guess. Maybe someone else has a better answer or can elaborate more.

So far no snark, which is very cool.

Question: If we go Nov 1., do we need to be prepared to stay out till the actor’s deal comes up, and maybe a couple of months past?

Question 2: What should we be asking leadership?

Andy,

That makes sense, but it seems like someone from the board would have voiced that last year, that we were backing away from organizing Reality since the proffered reason for trying to “organize, organize, organize” in the first place was to increase our bargaining position. I know an “organizing staff” and a lot of dues money went into that attempt, though I now believe the organizing staff is primarily used for organizing us (just my impression). To your knowledge, has the board moved away from trying to organize reality?

Derek. I have absolutely no idea what the board is thinking.

(Sorry this is running together — I can’t figure out how to put in the nice spaces and backgrounds of other posters. Please bear with me.)

A couple responses.

“Is it just me or do several of the ‘anonymous’ posters read like studio plants? Sorry to highjack the topic at hand for a moment but sometimes you gotta point out the obvious. If you work for a studio please just say so. I don’t think anyone would mind hearing your POV on how we should vote. Make your arguments. Shill away. But please don’t hide behind the ‘anonymous’ tag when doing it. Thanks”

Andy Rheigold wrote this, demonstrating one of my points: anyone who does not toe the WU line is immediately branded a studio shill. I have never worked for a studio other than as a writer, never plan to, never will. I’m a long-time Guild member and hope my prose will never be confused with what we see in production memos.

“Can we try and have this conversation without involving the Bush/Iraq scenario? I understand that there is a slight parallel, but this is a wholly different issue and I don’t think any of you can say that the WGA is lying about what the AMPTP is threatening their weapon of mass destruction was put on the table in the form of a residual rollback. Stop trying to force everything into the Bush sucks paradigm. You do your opinion (and this debate) a disservice.”

Posted by: anonymous at October 2, 2007 2:52 PM

The point I and others are making is that the current leadership was determined to start a labor war from the get-go and has allowed nothing to stand in their way. They passed up every opportunity for meaningful discussions — in January, in the Spring, in the summer — and now want us to give them a blank check five days or so into negotiations, and a month before the contract expires, saying we’re at an impasse. They will NOT be coming back to us for another vote before ordering a strike, and it would be incredibly naive (as well as poor game strategy) to think otherwise. And, as with Iraq, be careful what you start because it’s not up to you when it’s finished. I’m not sure why this particular “anonymous” is so quick to dismiss the Iraq analogy, or why it makes him/her so uncomfortable. To many of us it seems spot on.

“As for fearing retribution from other members in your own guild for expressing an unpopular view that’s the best reason I’ve heard for going fi-core. For a bunch of people who decry the old Hollywood Blacklist it sounds as if the real and ongoing blacklist is and has been from the left and not the right.

For those writers here who don’t have the courage to use their real names, how far do you bend over when you take notes from the producers assistant?

Again, if you don’t have the guts to vote no, then don’t vote at all.”

Posted by: John Ireland at October 2, 2007 3:20 PM

John Ireland may be comfortable going financial-core, but I love the Guild. Once you go fi-core, that’s it — you’re out forever. I may think the current leadership is a disaster, and vindictive, but why should I leave an organization that has been so good to me for so many years? This group will not keep a stranglehold on elective offices forever, and I would like to have my meager say when that day comes.

Finally, I want to reiterate that we do have a choice on the strike authorization, and that is to vote no, for all the reasons discussed. A “no” vote is not treasonous, cowardly, appeasing, or selfish unless some insist on couching it that way. You may go through an analysis like Craig’s and decide in the end to vote yes, but please don’t disparage the motives or integrity of those of us who have walked multiple picket lines and helped get you the minimums, residuals, health coverage, and pensions that you now enjoy.

Anonymous #1,

you seem to be overly concerned about being attacked. this discussion is mild thus far. (excpet for ireland but he’s harmless)

“please don’t disparage the motives or integrity of those of us who have walked multiple picket lines and helped get you the minimums, residuals, health coverage, and pensions that you now enjoy.”

we appreciate it. most of us who agree with Craig’s rationale are closer to your view than our disasterous leadership.

Thanks, Frankenstien. I’m gun-shy because I remember writers eating their own in the ‘80’s, and have seen the current leadership in action. In fact, I’m wondering if you used the Ashkenazic spelling of your name for just that very reason.

You bastard.

Ted, Are you voting “no?”

Anonymous, These boards can get pretty vindictive if you don’t tow the company line. But, I agree with the other poster, who said, it isn’t even close yet. I got reemed for posting anonymously on another issue, but my points were good enough to get personally attacked by both Ted and Craig. So don’t stop posting. It didn’t stop me from posting back then.

I am leaning towards a “yes” vote because I haven’t seen the great argument for a no vote. Craig makes a good point though the game theory analogy doesn’t totally work because he left out other factors and outcomes.

68%, Ted. Wow! That seems kind of low. But I guess it beats the 60 vote threshhold in the Senate! I’d love to know how many careers the past striked ended, if any. I just met a parent at my kid’s school who moved out of LA during the last strike. It ended his career.

Can WGAw writers get on to this “forum” to talk more about this? Or are we limited to WA boards and these blogs (Rogers, Mazin, August, etc.)

Craig,

Seems to me you writers would do better to focus your energies on establishing new film and TV companies that will pay what you consider to be fair rates and back ends, rather than picking fights with studios and networks.

If they won’t cooperate, take your business elsewhere. There’s so much money flying around Hollywood now, all these real-estate moguls, hedge funds. You can do it. It’ll take time and some sweat, but the alternative—fighting with studios and networks—is like fencing with the fog. You do all this saber rattling every three years, everyone in town goes into a panic, you get your tiny little raises, you get improvements to your health insurance coverage, but you get NOTHING of what’s really important to you. What’s the point?

Your approach is all wrong. You should just cave and accept whatever the studios and networks want to give you, and tell your reps, your producer allies, your banking allies that you’re finished doing business with existing studios and networks.

That’s how you really get what you want. You just stop knocking on their door and you build your own damn factories. That’s the only way you’re gonna get what you really want.

Then, if the studios and networks want you back, it’ll be on your terms, because you don’t need Paramount, Universal, Fox, CBS, etc. anymore.

Except, A Q, that isn’t the way the business operates.

Premium writers already cut deals far in excess of the MBA minimums currently being negotiated, some of these premium writers earning 1st $ gross.

The MBA is more for middle-class and entry level writers. That the A-listers are willing to throw their support behind those less privileged is a true display of Guild loyalty.

Psst, I can get a good deal for you on Jessica Alba’s panties.

Done. If you can include her in the deal.

“TOW” the line? Interesting neologism, but the correct expression is “toe the line,” i.e., stand straight so you can be counted (prisoners and soldiers), and don’t stray off your assigned turf.

Wow! What a big surprise Craig ends up supporting the corrupt establishment. Shock of shocks.

But really, he hates them. Doesn’t approve of them at all. But in the end he says we must all fall in line and support them because if we don’t then all hell will break loose.

I suggest all independant thinkers vote “No.” Unless you’re happy with the way writers are treated by this industry.

My opinion is writers are treated very badly. And our Union is doing nothing to help. So I suggest you all vote “NO” to give them more power to allow the industry to treat us even worse in the future.

Because frankly, Verrone doesn’t care about writers. He cares about the power he has. Let’s give him less of it.

J. F. Lawton

Anonymous Q said: “You do all this saber rattling every three years, everyone in town goes into a panic, you get your tiny little raises, you get improvements to your health insurance coverage, but you get NOTHING of what�s really important to you. What�s the point?”

From someone on the outside looking in, this seems to be the case, though a WGA member may have a different take.

WGA members: Has any good ever come out of a WGA strike?

Dave L.,

Has any good come out of a WGA strike?

It depends on your position.

It certainly has been very successful for the studios in driving down WGA members salaries and other union salaries. It’s also been brilliant in preventing WGA members from sharing in important new profit areas like video cassettes, DVD’s, cable and now the internet.

It’s almost as if the WGA has been corrupted and run by the studios since the 50’s blacklist.

That would be hard to believe, unless you looked at the deals it has made since then.

J. F. Lawton

WGA strikes led to the creation of a pension and health care system for writers, credit protection for writers, and residuals for writers.

Not bad.

But it’s been decades since any good has come of a strike.

J.F.

If you think writers are treated very badly, you should try getting a real job for a while and see what being treated badly really feels like.

I’ll answer for you J.F. Tim, you should try writing for a living and you won’t be calling it a “fake” job. I work seventy hours a week and rarely see my family. I listen to non-writers tell me how to do my job. I listen to people with less than one year of experience as executives tell me how to do the job I’ve been doing for over a decade. And I smile through it all. For those who think that writing isn’t a real job, it isn’t, until you’re doing it for a living. Than you know that it has all the benefits and curses of any other job. No more, no less. As a great writer once said (but I’m too busy working to look up who!) “Writers are people who hate writing more than other people.” That’s because, like a real job, if you do it enough, you learn to hate it (as well as love it, sometimes.) A job is a job. Creative or not. J.F., you could probably have said it better than I, but, maybe, I saved you a little time, so you can get some work done.

As an outsider looking in it seems to me that now the WGA leadership has wheeled the cannon on to the stage, it’s going to be pretty pointless if they don’t fire it.

Whether you agree with the Writers United style of leadership or not, I’m presuming you all agree 100 per cent with the demands they’ve brought to the table, don’t you?

Surely that’s worth striking over?

If you carry on working to your original contracts and wait for the DGA or SAG to do the heavy lifting for you, then maybe you’re going to be settling for third best� Because directing and acting are so much like writing a script aren’t they? (sarcasm)

Saying all that though, the WU bods do need to listen to the words of Supertramp and “Give a little bit”.

As for those members of your union who can’t even be bothered to send in a ballot form, do you really want people like that in your union?

I have a question that, sadly, needs to be asked. What is the process for counting the strike authorization ballots? Elections of Guild officers and Board members fall under the DOL rules, so we have some independent outsider come in and oversee the tabulation. There’s also an election committee of members in the counting room. But no such restrictions exist with a strike authorization vote. Isn’t that right? This is a real concern, given that ballots in WGAE elections have ended up in the ED’s desk drawers, and the current WGAw leadership has a strong interest in maximizing both the turnout figures and the percentages. What’s to prevent them from making it all up?

pardon if this point has been made already, but the proper vote casting analogy to me isnt likening the yes vote of this strike authorization to the authorization going to war.

the proper political analogy is the no vote for the strike authorization as the no protest vote for ralph nader in 2000.

Anonymous I,

I’ve had many jobs, including writing for a living. Is writing difficult? Hell, yes. But there’s a reason you, as well as lots of other writers, do it for a living instead of something else. Because you can, and would rather do that than anything else. Writing, as with any profession, has it’s downsides and times when it seems like a chore, but when you compare it to a regular crap job, it’s heaven.

Someone makes a good living (or in some cases, a VERY good living) by writing, whining about how badly you get treated needs a reality check, quite frankly. I’ve had more than half a dozen jobs (some of them pretty good paying) and none of them compare to writing. Try waiting tables, or digging ditches, or, hell, even working in an office. Anyone doing those jobs would LOVE to switch places with you.

Writing is hard work and underappreciated by most people, but if you can do it for a living, or even better make a good living at it, then you should count your blessings. There’s a reason so many people dream of becoming a writer, and so few dream of becoming a bank teller or a factory worker.

If you hate it so much, give it up and try something else. There are thousands willing to take your place.

Nice points, Tim. But I would like to answer them without making you mad. Fair? Okay, most people who end up writing for a living, make that decision and either fail or succeed (in this case, succeed being defined as making a living, and only in this argument.) If they succeed they continue. Whether it was dream or a lark or an accident, that’s how it works. If you can’t make a living at it, you have to do something else (for a living.) So, your assumption that once you get into it, that it’s some kind of dream job, doesn’t necessarily hold true. Sure it’s better than some, but it’s worse than others. And I wasn’t whining about the downsides. I was just stating them. By the way, I forgot to state the fact of not knowing if you’re going to be able to make those payments you committed to when you had a good gig! Another thing, I need to point out. A writer who makes a living as screenswriter doesn’t get very far if he whines about all the bullshit. Again, it’s that way in any job. Period. Also, most people who would LOVE to write, either can’t actually write, or, if they can, won’t put in the seventy hours a week or whatever hours they’ve committed themselves to. As one friend of mine said, they see it as some kind of weird utopia. But you get the picture on that point. It’s not as you said so yourself. It’s better than some jobs and worse than others. BTW, before I “made it,” (again, only defined by making a living at it,) I had other jobs, some of the same ones you had. So I do have some real experience when I compare. So, I’d have to say, except for the truly, truly wealthy screenwriter, we don’t look at our jobs as heaven. (I’m assuming that massive compensation makes you happier, but what do I know?) We look at it like another people with some success in their fields. It has its ups and downs, but it’s not “special.” It’s just what we do. That’s hard to explain to someone in their twenties or even early thirties, who are always thinking that the grass is greener. It may be and it can be, but it’s not a given. And yes, I enjoy my job most of time, and yes, I hate it, a lot, too. But, so do my attorney friends, my salesmen friends, my stockbroker friends. For, as you get older, you realize you can be happy and miserable doing almost anything. I think Josh Friedman says something about this on his long dead blog. Something like you kind of remember that dream part, but now you need to get your butt in gear and work! I probably won’t convince you of anything, Tim, but, maybe, someone will read this and get a more clear picture.

“Whether you agree with the Writers United style of leadership or not, I’m presuming you all agree 100 per cent with the demands they’ve brought to the table, don’t you?”

Not all of them, necessarily.

“Writing is hard work and underappreciated by most people, but if you can do it for a living, or even better make a good living at it, then you should count your blessings. There’s a reason so many people dream of becoming a writer, and so few dream of becoming a bank teller or a factory worker.”

Yes. I’ve often thought that anyone who has a job that any other person would like to do should just shut the hell up.

It’s like all those whiny teachers. You know how many ditch diggers would love to sit inside and just talk about stuff? And teachers tend to make salaries that higher than the average American.

They should take what they can get because there’s a thousand people out there who’d love the opportunity.

Tim W,

Ditch digging is hard if you want to be a writer. Writing is hard if you want to be a ditch digger. Love is what makes your work bearable or hell.

You’re an example of what’s wrong with the world. You assume people are blessed to hold jobs that they love. That they were gifted these jobs through prayer. You forget the struggle and the sacrifice that came before success.

Counting one’s blessings is the equivalent to putting a shotgun to one’s head.

So go dig a ditch, keep your nose out of a world you could never understand, and praise the sky you have arms.

“�Whether you agree with the Writers United style of leadership or not, I�m presuming you all agree 100 per cent with the demands they�ve brought to the table, don�t you?�

Not all of them, necessarily.”

Anonymous: could you be more specific?

Anonymous I,

Thanks for your very concise and fair response. I think we are on similar ground in this argument, but coming from different directions. I do understand that any job, no matter how attractive to an outsider, simply becomes a job to that person, with all the negatives of any job. I’m not in my late twenties or early thirties anymore. I know every job has it’s downsides. I’ve actually held job that people felt was a `dream job’, yet there were definite downsides to it. Still, I was appreciative of the fact that I could be doing something else much worse. I heard other people whining about the job and I shook my head and had the same response as I did to J.F. Did my job have it’s downsides? Sure, but I knew that most people I knew would do anything to switch places with me. I generally worked longer hours than any of my friends, had to put up with a lot of bullshit and while the money was decent, I wasn’t exactly breaking the bank, but the pluses FAR outweighed the minuses. Eventually I quit and moved onto something else, but that’s another story.

I come from a family of writers, although only my sister actually makes a living at it at the moment, so I know the writing life pretty well. I started out in my adult life trying to be a screenwriter, got sidetracked, then recently started focusing on it again. I actually have three jobs, only two of them paying, at the moment. 70 hour work weeks, to me, are the norm on a light week. I have two young children and a mortgage that I have to pay for a modest fixer-upper that would impress no one. I work as much as I do to make ends meet AND allow me to follow my dream. I don’t expect being a full-time screenwriter to be any less work, nor do I believe it’s going to make me rich (money certainly isn’t the most import thing, but struggling to make ends meet certainly isn’t all that much fun), but there’s nothing I’d rather do. Am I any good? I think so, but I’ve never really had a chance to find out. I know I’m good enough to attract some interest and have come VERY close on several occasions, but close doesn’t pay the bills.

I don’t look at your profession with rose coloured glassed, but I think that people like J.F. also need a little bit of a reality check. That’s really all I’m saying.

“Ditch digging is hard if you want to be a writer. Writing is hard if you want to be a ditch digger. Love is what makes your work bearable or hell.

You’re an example of what’s wrong with the world. You assume people are blessed to hold jobs that they love. That they were gifted these jobs through prayer. You forget the struggle and the sacrifice that came before success.

Counting one’s blessings is the equivalent to putting a shotgun to one’s head.

So go dig a ditch, keep your nose out of a world you could never understand, and praise the sky you have arms.”

Your argument would make sense if people actually wanted to become ditch diggers like they do writers. Way to have a grasp of the rest of the world. Let’s hope your writing shows a little more reality. And I thank you for calling me what’s wrong with the world. Apparently you know me from a few posts. An amazing ability you have.

If you don’t appreciate what you have, you’ll never be happy. I guess happy people are what’s wrong with the world. I certainly don’t want to live in yours.

I’m presuming you all agree 100 per cent with the demands they’ve brought to the table, don’t you?

Hardly.

I think some of the jurisdictional demands they’re making would, if granted, actually hurt our union. Our guild is a creative union, and it depends on the quality of its membership, not its quantity.

Tim W,

Your loathing of writers is boring, and it’s the kind of ignorance one only finds in non-writers. You confuse writing an e mail to your mother with professional writing. Anyone, frankly, can dig a ditch or lay bricks. There’s a reason it’s much harder to get a job as a screenwriter than as a waiter, and that’s because it’s much harder to do a writer’s work.

Like a lot of people who aren’t very adept with words, you have trouble understanding their meaning. You confuse physical labor with difficulty. Yes, it’s much easier to sit at a keyboard than it is to lay the foundation for a house. The learning curve, however, is radically different. Using your ignorant standards, it’s easier to be a tax attorney than it is to be a dishwasher at a diner.

A wise man once suggested that it’s a good idea, when you don’t know what you’re talking about, to keep your mouth shut.

Tim W.

To be clear, the shotgun is a metaphor for THE END. Make sense?

While you count your blessings, the world moves on without you. And when you’re dead, the world goes on without you. You see? They’re the same.

Happiness is earned, not given or reflected upon.

And what’s wrong with aspiring to be a ditch digger? One man’s trash is another man’s gold…

And, let’s be clear, most people don’t want to be writers, they want the fame and wealth that sometimes comes with the trade (fame not being the case for screenwriters).

Writing as a profession has not always been lucrative (and still isn’t really). In fact, I bet ditch diggers make more money than most writers.

Cormac McCarthy was practically homeless most of his life. All he could do was write, even when he was starving. He didn’t stop and thank the heavens he was a writer. He was too busy writing! So start writing, stop whining, and count your blessings when you’re dead.

And remember, “The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”

“pardon if this point has been made already, but the proper vote casting analogy to me isnt likening the yes vote of this strike authorization to the authorization going to war.

the proper political analogy is the no vote for the strike authorization as the no protest vote for ralph nader in 2000.

Posted by: holly sorensen at October 3, 2007 11:57 AM”

Holly: No one made this point because it’s not very persuasive. If you believe a vote against strike authorization is like a vote for Nader, then you must believe that we have to do everything Bush asks because he’s the President. Otherwise we are playing into the hands of terrorists and dictators around the globe. Look, the current leadership is asking us to give them the responsibility of deciding when to go to war, and some of us are not convinced this group merits that responsibility, at least not at this time. Let’s not use “a show of unity to management” as a reason to stop thinking or questioning. Better to be divided by the right position than united behind a wrong and unduly destructive one.

Wow, for writers, some of you have trouble reading. The irony of the situation would be hilarious if it weren’t directed with such venom towards me.

Let me try and make this clear. I don’t loathe writers. Quite the opposite. I wouldn’t be trying to BECOME a professional screenwriter if I didn’t love it.

I understand the reasons behind the difficulty in becoming a professional writer of any sort. It takes a certain gift that most don’t have. And it takes a lot of hard work, not only to become one but to stay one. That said, YOU’RE ALL GODDAMN LUCKY to be a professional screenwriter and not something else you hate. You have a gift that others don’t, no matter how hard they work at it. If you don’t see that you don’t deserve to be writing for a living.

Somehow, some people mistakingly believe that my “real job” comment was a shot at the profession. It seem a little insecure, but who knows. My comment was meant to make light of the other jobs that people do, not because they want to or have chosen to, but because they have to in order to live. And it’s usually a job they hate. Not some of the time but most of the time.

Some of you need to lighten the fuck up and do something about your bitterness because you come off as miserable whiners who desperately need a reality check. You want to feel appreciated, go buy a dog.

At least I can thank Anonymous I for actually bringing something other than ignorant insults to the conversation. Guys like Craig and Ted, or John August, Jane Espenson and Alex Epstein, who blog elsewhere, seem to understand their good fortune to be able to do what they do, no matter how hard they have to work at it.

SML,

Your last post seemed much more thought out, and I thank you.

There’s a difference between writing and writing for a living. Anyone can write, but you have to have a certain gift to be able to do it for a living. And I think a good majority of those who want to become writers do so because they love the craft. They love putting words to paper (or screen) and being able to focus on that, rather than doing that, as well as working a regular job, is a dream come true. I think screenwriting might attract more of the people you mention, simply because of the money that some people make in the industry, but others, like myself, are drawn to it not for the payday, but for the chance to create something that will be put up on the screen. It’s because I love movies. And, I love writing.

There’s nothing wrong with being a ditchdigger, but it’s not a profession very many people aspire to. And I think there’s a reason for that.

Counting your blessing and the shotgun remark, I think you misunderstood what I meant. I didn’t suggest you sit back and savour your situation. I simply meant that you understand that you are, indeed, fortunate to have the ability to do what you do, no matter how much work it takes. I feel fortunate to have a roof over my head, to have a wife and kids that I adore and to be in the situation that I am in, even if it is not where I want to be. I am generally happy, but I’m not content.

As for the constitution, I’m not American, so it doesn’t pertain to me.

I’m of the mind, like Craig, that our leaders have jumped the gun in calling for an SAV at this particular moment. With that said, sadly, I’m voting YES.

Hey Craig, What’s the scoop on Marshall Golberg being fired? Is it connected to the SAV? I’m reading the WA thread now, but I wanted to ask you directly. Also, you never responded about how one joins the forum. I’d love to hear what my colleagues are saying about the vote and I would think that’s a lively place (especially on this topic.) Your blog contains the most info and debate, but for this issue, I’d like to see what’s going in the forum. John Rogers blog and John August’s blog don’t seem to get many WGA writers posting.

Hey Craig, I see now in the WA thread that you’ve told us what you know (or heard) about the Marshall firing. Thanks.

So, the law requires that unions have constitutions, that set forth certain things like dues assessments, membershp criteria and — relevant here — the process of issuing restraining orders (legales for “calling a strike” — the union actually issues an order restraining its members from providing covered services to struck employers).

When its comes to both the WGAw and WGAE, constitutionally (per Article IX.A.1.a of the West constitution; there’s an identical article in the East constitution, although it might be a different number Article), anyway, per that, if the Board and Council have come to the membership for a strike authorization vote, its means that the Negotiation Committee has recommended “… the cessations of negotiations and the imposition of a restraining order in support of its demands.”

So, provided the Guilds are operating according to the process for issuing restraining orders set forth in the constitutions as required by federal law, the Negotiating Committee has recommeded that we stop negotiating and go out on strike.

Well, that’s different from what we’re being told, huh?

Also constitutionally speaking (Article IX.A.1.C.1), if the Negotiation Committee has recommended ending negotations and calling a strike, and the Boards (meaning the West Board and East Council) has adopted the recommendation, “the Boards shall, after approval by the memberships in the manner hereafter provided, issue orders directing all members of their repsective Guilds to cease rendering services to and to refrain from contracting for the sale or licensing of their literary material or dramatic material to any of the persons, firms or corporations named in such orders.”

That part that says “… the Boards shall … issue orders” sure seems like the constitution gives the membership the final say on whether or not we’re going out on strike or not, and not the Boards. So if the majority of each memership (50% plus one) says go, come the second after midnight on November 1st, it’s a go.

Which, again, not quite what we’re being told, but, really, what can the Boards do? The constitution ties their hands on this one.

• Ted

Can we please not get caught up with Tim W?

Motherfuckers are about to go broke in 3 1/2 weeks.

I don’t mean to be the slow one, Ted, but are you saying that by voting “yes” we’re technically going out on strike? Is that what you mean by it’s different than what we’re told? Like Craig, I feel I don’t have much of choice but to vote “yes” but I’d like as much info as I can get before actually doing it.

Anonymous,

I voted yes because I believe that we as a union have to. The alternative is we have zero power at the negotiating table. Even if it means we go on strike Nov. 1st, it’s better than having no bargaining chip.

We’re playing poker. I’m going all in. And for me personally, that’s giving up a lot of income.

It really is GIVING IT UP, because I get a better deal than most writers get. I don’t need the union anymore.

But I did when I started, and the new technology residuals are worth fighting for for the writers who come after us.

Reality and product placement…not so much.

When this bargaining chip results in no added leverage with the producers after Oct 31, when they don’t change their offer, will we still call it a bargaining chip? Will it still be called leverage?

Or will we finally admit we voted to go out on strike without negotiating? Without any other alternative? Strike or cave, wasn’t this the opposite of these guys campaign platform? We were offered a status quo deal with a proposal to study digital. Admittedly not a good deal, but we didn’t negotiate or discuss, we simply rejected it. This, after refusing to come to the table early. The residual rollback offer is punitive. We all but demanded it through early and constant antagonism, tough talk and failure to negotiate. They may be pricks, but we’re idiots.

I don’t believe we haven’t tried to negotiate. I believe we are continuing to try to negotiate, and bringing this Strike Authorization to the table might help. Might not. Definitely won’t hurt. Would hurt to vote no,, though. Just my opinion.

Nonymous:

That’s a pretty fair summary of why I think the current leadership has failed to deliver on their essential promise, and why I continue to view them skeptically and critically.

Man, it’s a rock and a hard place kind of thing. Nobody wants a strike. It doesn’t do anyone any good. It’s so sad that we have to resort to 1920’s posturing to get anything done in this town. Oh well.

Could someone clarify the gravity of the situation? I’m outside looking to get in, by the way. I know writers stand to lose their jobs for six months to a year. But it seems to be worse than that. Some have said it can and will end careers. Isn’t that overly dramatic? I’ve had spells of being out of work, three months to six months. Yeah, it was tough. I even did some cook work there, took hand outs from relatives to get by. It’s hell. But it does end, and so will this, won’t it? So why would it end career? Can’t you get back into the game, take that time off to build up your repertoire? Then come back like gang busters?

I don’t mean to be the slow one, Ted, but are you saying that by voting “yes” we’re technically going out on strike? Is that what you mean by it’s different than what we’re told?

What we’re being told is, the strike authorization vote is leverage that negotiating committee can use in negotiations, that it does not mean we’re going out on strike, and that whether or not we go out on strike is up to the West Board & East Council.

What the constitutions of both Guilds say, backed by federal law, is that if we’re voting on a strike authorization, it means that the Negotiating Committee has recommended that negotiations cease and we go out on strike and the West Board & East Council has adopted that recommendation.

The constitutions also says that if the membership votes “yes,” negotations must cease, the Board & Council must call a strike, and negotiations cannot resume until after we’re on strike.

So if the Guilds are being governed in accordance with their constitutions and federal law, then, yes, what we are being told is different from what will happen. The constitution gives the membership the final authority to call a strike or not; if the membership votes “Yes” — then we strike.

If the Guilds are being governed in accordance with their constitutions and federal law, I mean.

• Ted

Sypa,

I’ve been hearing that Network TV is on the brink. If we go to strike, TV as we know it could cease to exist.

“Writing” is not a guaranteed position. Most of us are independent contractors, if you will, so when the strike ends it doesn’t mean we have jobs to go back to.

Think about it this way, a strike is a disease and it attacks and kills the weak (young, sick, and old). Only the strong will survive and prosper from the weaks’ sacrifice.

Careers will be lost. It’s a guarantee.

Well FWIW, I voted yes. The two other guild members I talked to also say they intend to vote yes.

That said, I think Ted’s point above is interesting. If I understand what he’s saying— a SEPARATE vote would need to be taken for an actual strike. Is that it? Is this “strike authorization” effectively unconstitutional?

If so, it seems this had better be straightened out pronto. We don’t want to be figuring out procedural stuff in the heat of battle.

Check out this recent interview with Mario Cuomo where he argues that delegating the power to the president was an abdication of the duties of the Congress (and that it may have been unconstitutional). Sounds similar, no?

The more I’m reading, the more likely it seems there will in fact be a strike… and that it will be very long and very bloody. I just hope it turns out better this time than it has in the past few strikes. I don’t want to be part of a wholly de-balled guild.

Finally, what’s up with this in the newsletter about making all animated features “not already covered under a collective bargaining agreement” under the WGA? If they don’t already fall under the WGA, they’re covered by the Animation Guild, right?

AYAAW

If I understand what he’s saying, a SEPARATE vote would need to be taken for an actual strike. Is that it?

If the Guild wants to turn this “strike authorization” vote into a straw ballot — basically, a poll of the membership, rather than an actual vote — then, yeah, a second vote would be required in order to actually go out on strike.

Is this “strike authorization” effectively unconstitutional?

Taking the vote is not unconstitutional.

However, once the vote is taken, if the majorty of members vote “yes,” then the constitution requires that negotiations cease and the West Board & East Council call a strike. Only after we’re on strike can the Negotiating Committee go back to the table.

Doing anything else — like what we’ve been told could happen, like the Board and Council not issuing strike orders, or like the Negotiating Committee returning to the table with the strike authorization in hand to use as leverage — would be unconstitutional.

• Ted

What a confusing situation!

In light of what you’ve already said Ted, does this mean that it is unconstitutional to call the vote before the contract ends, given that the vote should cause an immediate strike, but you can’t lawfully strike until the contract had expired?

Correct me if my assumptions are wrong there, but it seems like some rules are being broken there.

“does this mean that it is unconstitutional to call the vote before the contract ends, given that the vote should cause an immediate strike, but you can’t lawfully strike until the contract had expired?”

No. As I understand it, you can vote now, the strike would begin on Nov. 1, as soon as the contract expires.

If the major network tv crowd think they are going to counter a strike with an avalanche of reality shows, they thunk wrong. Latest stats show that reality, even the blockbusters, are in the beginning of a slide. This has got to be of concern to Counter and his cronies. If we go out now, and the stockpiling ceases, this could be about as much leverage as we’re ever gonna have.

In ‘88, as a constantly-working writer, I voted “no” to the final settlement because I felt that what we were going to be screwed out of in the future was worth a deeper hold out. These days, I’m still working, but the opportunities, in opposition to the past, are not flying at me from all directions. Still, in my humble opinion, what we will lose as new technology continues to change the face of the business will make the DVD issue look like kindergarten stuff. And we, and especially the next generation, will dearly regret the stand not taken.

Thanks for explaining, Ted. Now, I’m more torn than before. Does the leadership know what you just explained? If so, does that mean if I vote “yes,” I’m saying, go ahead and strike on Nov. 1? Do they know that’s what they’re asking for? Are are they telling me that they’re interpreting the bylaws differently than you are? How did it work with the GM strike? Was there a SAV before they went out on strike, negotiations shut down, then the strike, then negotiations resumed, and strike settled? In that order? Which is what you’re saying is the proper order according to the bylaws. And BTW, strike settled in favor of GM, in my humble opinion. (For example, Two tier pay structure.) I don’t know as much about the leadership as you and Craig do, but I have to say, they can’t really be that duplicitous. Whom is the best person on the board for me to email and get some insight into what you’re saying?

Anon I

The leadership knows exactly what they are doing. If you vote yes, you will be on strike November 1. And just as they told you we must authorize the strike to show we mean busines, they will then tell you we have to stay out on strike to show we mean business. None of this will change the contract we end up with. It will only satisfy the less than honest motives of the guild members who have been pushing for a strike since 2001.

Leif —

Per the constitution, the Negotiating Committee can recommed to the Board & Council that we cease negotiating and go out on strike at any point they believe the negotiations have reached an impasse. There’s nothing that stipulates that can happen only come after the contract expire).

Although “… the [Board & Council] shall … issue orders” can be interpreted to mean that they must do so immediately after the membeship approves a strike, all that it actually says is, after the membership approves a strike, the next thing that must happen in the negotiation processs is: the Board & Council issue strike orders.

This per force precludes the Negotiating Committee from returning to the bargaining table until after we’re on strike. It also per force precludes the Board & Council from not calling a strike.

So it’s not that the Board & Council have done anything in the process that’s uncostitutional; it’s that they’ve been telling the membership that a “yes” vote gives them options to do things that are unconstitituional — that the Negotiating Committee can go back to the table with the additional leverage of the strike authorization, the Board & Council can not call a strike.

Nope. There are no options. A call for a strike authorization means the Negotiating Committee and Board & Council have ceased negotiating and see a strike as the only way to move the AMPTP off their current position; a “yes” vote means negotiations are ceased until we strike.

• Ted

As we approach this possible strike, it dawns on me that the writers who will suffer the worst reprecussions are the writers of episodic TV — not feature film writers. During a strike, feature writers could still be penning scripts… that they could sell once the strike is over. Writers for prime time TV can’t be stockpiling episodes of their shows. Once they’ve stopped working… the money stops coming in. One result of the previous strike was the proliferation of reality TV and thus, fewer jobs in TV for writers. I don’t have specific facts, but I doubt feature writers saw a similar shrinkage of work opportunities post strike. The point is — I think it’s easy (perhaps easier) for feature writers to beat the drum for a strike and to play harball with the production companies and networks because they have less to lose. We all know the dynamics of the business — TV writers get paid either by the week or the episode, and that fee is considerably smaller than what screenwriters make for writing movies. Plus — if the TV writers don’t make their 30 grand or so for the year, they won’t have health coverage the following year, either. So, they face the double prospect of no job and no health insurance. At the end of the day, if the union goes out on strike - it’s the TV writers who bare the biggest brunt. And not really the successful ones — who’ve got money saved and and plenty of points stock piled for their insurance… it’s the young guys just coming up… Although I’m voting yes on the strike ballot — I hope the union has plans to help those of us who will be out of work… and that once the strike is over (if there is one) that successful / working writers throw the ladder back to help out the guys who suffered the worst.

John Ireland: “It will only satisfy the less than honest motives of the guild members who have been pushing for a strike since 2001.”

Nice generalization, John. And Athens is still trying to get even with the Spartans for the Peloponnesian War.

How much leverage does a strike authorization give in the case where management has long believed there will actually will be a strike? From an outside perspective it seems that the AMPTP proposals were fashioned expecting such a move from the Guild (a move that many on this forum seem to have also long expected). The strike authorization may move the two sides closer to a last best & final offer, but other than that, what does it accomplish? Yes, it’s great to have a stick to wave to push the deal closer to where you want it, but considering that they haven’t seemed to get anywhere yet in actual negotiations, isn’t the split already too wide to accomplish all that the Guild would like? Historically, I’m not sure if strikes in this industry have been rewarded.

Hotchkiss:

And yet, I get the sense it’s TV writers who are banging the drum, and this is probably because they have more to lose.

Feature writers have been living under a .3% residuals scheme for nearly a quarter of a century. But TV writers get a better rate on residuals for much of the reuse of their work (at least, collectively).

If downloads cannibalize reruns, etc., and the download rate isn’t much higher than the home video rate, TV writers will take a very large hit.

Feature writers either won’t notice a difference, or will improve.

Maybe that explains why the robomessages we’re all getting at home urging us to vote “yes” have been recorded by Carlton Cuse, the showrunner of Lost.

Meanwhile, one thing that pisses me (and a lot of screenwriters) off?

Every dollar we make as screenwriters is duesable.

But Carlton Cuse? Most of his money comes as a producer, and it’s not duesable. That’s an arrangement almost every showrunner lives by. It’s not fair to us screenwriters to shoulder so much more of the burden.

Mr. Elliott is incorrect that the WGA constitution requires that a strike authorization vote means the Guild must strike before negotiating further. That doesn’t even make sense — why would the Guild hamstring itself like that in negotiations? A strike authorization vote gives valuable leverage during the negotiations — it means the AMPTP has to get serious about its proposals or a strike can be called.

A strike authorization vote is a thing real unions do in order to ratchet up the pressure on management. It’s what the Teamsters did this summer when negotiating with the AMPTP. A couple of weeks after the vote, they had a deal.

I’m just glad the WGA is finally acting like a union.

And I’m an internet idiot, but I think my previous post didn’t get put up. So I didn’t really expect the above post to go up before the earlier one.

Anyway, the earlier post said I found the discussion here to be really interesting, because the anti-strike authorization vote talk is not something I’m hearing from my colleagues at all. I think a robust debate over the vote is incredibly important — of course, I also think that after the facts are all in, people are going to want to vote yes. Thanks.

IMO, Ted’s strict constructionist reading of the Constitution is wrong. The Board of Directors (which has ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution) has always conducted strike votes. To the best of my recollection, in 1977, the Guild took a strike authorization vote, continued to negotiate and with that pressure reached an agreement that actually avoided a strike. In 1988, when I was co-chair of the Negotiating Committee, the strike vote took place before contract expiration, and the strike was only called after continued negotiations failed.

Historical precedent aside, Ted’s interpretation would tie our hands in negotiations. It would mean that the Guild could never take a strike authorization vote before the expiration of the MBA, since it is prohibited from striking until the contract ends. A strike authorization is only valuable if it creates pressure to reach an agreement, and that can only happen if negotiations continue. No union would put itself in that kind of straightjacket, and the Guild never has.

So, summing up, a Strike Authorization Vote is part of the process, our Constitution mandates it, and the Board and Council implement it by invoking their authority to isse a “restraining order” to the membership that leads to the worok stoppage we call a “strike.”

The POSITIVE SA vote is the empowering mechanism necessary to the process.

IMO, Ted’s strict constructionist reading of the Constitution is wrong. The Board of Directors (which has ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution) has always conducted strike votes. To the best of my recollection, in 1977, the Guild took a strike authorization vote, continued to negotiate and with that pressure reached an agreement that actually avoided a strike. In 1988, when I was co-chair of the Negotiating Committee, the strike vote took place before contract expiration, and the strike was only called after continued negotiations failed.

Historical precedent aside, Ted’s interpretation would tie our hands in negotiations. It would mean that the Guild could never take a strike authorization vote before the expiration of the MBA, since it is prohibited from striking until the contract ends. A strike authorization is only valuable if it creates pressure to reach an agreement, and that can only happen if negotiations continue. No union would put itself in that kind of straightjacket, and the Guild never has.

So, summing up, a Strike Authorization Vote is part of the process, our Constitution mandates it, and the Board and Council implement it by invoking their authority to isse a “restraining order” to the membership that leads to the worok stoppage we call a “strike.”

The POSITIVE SA vote is the empowering mechanism necessary to the process.

Excuse the double post, I’m writing on a borrowed machine.

Excuse the double post. I writing on a borrowed machine.

I’ve been reading the constitution, and I have to agree with Ted’s analysis. It doesn’t seem that the constitution provides for a strike “option” authorization. According to Article IX, Part C, Section 1, it works like this:

1. When talks break down, the negotiating committee recommends a strike to the board.
2. The membership votes on it.
3. The board “shall” issue the “restraining order”, ie, a strike.

This sentence seems key:

“If a majority of the combined voting membership approves the proposed action the restraining orders shall be issued.”

Part C, Section 2.a deals a little more with how it works (“restraining orders [ie, strikes]… shall be issued in the following manner”). When an “impasse in negotiations” is reached, and after the membership has voted for the strike authorization, the Board “ shall issue an order directing all members of the Guild to cease rendering services”.

It’s all “shall”s, not “may” or “can” or even “aught to”.

If the Guild wants to turn this “strike authorization” vote into a straw ballot - basically, a poll of the membership, rather than an actual vote - then, yeah, a second vote would be required in order to actually go out on strike.

And yet, Carlton Cuse, executive producer of “Lost”, left an automated message on my machine saying, in part, “I know there’s some confusion about this vote. This is not a vote to strike. This is a vote authorizing the board in consultation with the negotiation committee to call a strike if it becomes necessary at the right strategic moment… …the negotiations committee, the WGA board, and the WGAe council all unanimously voted to seek a strike authorization. This is a very serious measure which will only be taken as a last resort. But we need it as a tool.

Section 2.I says that the board can “Apply and interpret the provisions of this Constitution and Bylaws”, which I’m guessing gives them a lot of latitude regarding how to interpret the vote we are taking now. I guess their out could be to argue that this IS a straw poll, but it reflects widespread support for a strike from the membership.

Or, upon realizing that this pre-made “authorization” doesn’t exist constitutionally, they may just take it as a straight vote to strike and say “yeah, that’s what we wanted anyway” and we’re on our way Nov. 1.

So confusing. It’s interesting, because the US constitution doesn’t say anything about congress being able to push war powers to the president either, but it happened anyway. (See Cuomo interview linked above).

(already voted “yes” and would probably do it again anyway. Just steeling myself for the long drawn out fight…)

AYAAW

Well I guess the <quote> tag doesn’t do anything in wordpress … blah. Well, you can guess what excerpts above are Ted’s.

AYAAW

So basically, the position is that the WGA constitution doesn’t say what it says, it says whatever works best for us.

Cool.

I will use that as a defense in case I’m ever accused of violating the constitution.

Given our lack of respect for written rules, wouldn’t it be easier to just say that the current MBA gives us Internet Downloads? If our constitution says whatever we want it to regardless of what it actually says, certainly the MBA can, too

Looking at the ballot, I think it’s clear the strike authorization vote will NOT be treated as a mandatory strike vote. Here’s the language: “Should the WGAW Board of Directors and the WGAE Council be authorized to declare a strike, if and when they deem it advisable to do so, in connection with negotiations for the 2007 WGA [MBA]?” If I knew how to do italics, I would have italicized the middle clause.

But the actual wording of the constitution doesn’t allow for the kind of vote that the ballot says.

Plus, if the constitution wording doesn’t matter, why should we assume the wording on the ballot matters?

Responding to Anonymous: Well, I guess I don’t think any of our Guild leaders are looking to perpetrate a deliberate fraud on us. C’mon, I know we’re paranoid writers and all (not that that doesn’t mean everyone’s out to get us!), but does anyone really think they’re trying to defraud us?

If the ignore our written constitution then aren’t they defrauding us by definition?

That’s the choice: They’re either telling us something that’s not true or they’re ignoring the constitution that membership voted on and approved to govern how our Guild operates.

Either way, there’s some defrauding going on. Pick your poison.

Written By Reds?

A good headline, as all cultural Marxists know, is key to getting the mobs’ attention. So it goes with the propaganda article, Fighting Words, in the October issue of Written By. Ironically the article commits the very sins it criticizes in the effort to make you think that the Hollywood Blacklist is some how related to the current contract negotiations. (And strike vote?)

Rampell’s article begins by linking the Consent Decree that forced the studios to the give up their theatres with issues of modern technology of today. But he barely gives it anymore mention or explanation before spinning off into sidebar comments such as “Those who don’t remember the 60th anniversary of the Hollywood Ten and the Blacklist might be doomed to repeat it.” Is he suggesting that there is any issue in our contract negotiations that has to do with blacklisting anyone? Yes! He quotes Dalton Trumbo by stating that the reason for the HUAC probe of Hollywood was to destroy trade unions. And that folks is as Marxist a lie as you can come up with.

Author Ed Rampell plays all the usual association games. If you supported the idea of the HUAC (the genesis of which go back to 1937 and the Roosevelt administration) you are a fascist, racist, anti-Semite, publicity-hungry, self-righteous, would-be thought censor. If you opposed the HUAC then you were progressive and freedom loving and courageous.

Now the question Rampell never asks and never answers is the simple question that the Hollywood 10 were asked. “Are you (were they) now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” Why was that question relevant to the HUAC? Because the Communist Party, through word, action, deed and financing, was an agent of a foreign government, the Soviet Union, and it advocated the overthrow (by all means necessary), the American government and constitution. And that qualified it (and its front groups) as “subversive” organizations going back the early forties when it was named by the FBI, along with the American Bund and the KKK, as such.

In the post war era, the Soviet Union (along with its Marxists puppet states) became more confrontational and belligerent. As such, concerns in America grew about those who believed in the overthrow of the American government…and that focused on the Communist Party, its fronts, members and sympathizers.

As George Orwell said, when fascism comes to America, it will come cloaked as anti-fascism. It is interesting that in our capitalist democracy we have a left and right wing of opinion. And the same is true in socialism…you have the fascist right wing and the Marxist left wing…but they are both socialism.

The HUAC hearings ended up, as most things political do, in a Chinese fire drill of headline grabbing. Joe McCarthy became the chief clown of the televised hearing, but then most televised hearing (including today’s) are nothing more than clown shows filled with grandstanding.

In the case of the Hollywood 10, there was also a parade of various celebrities. One group (with a very Orwellian name), was The Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee…accorded to Rampell…“one of several prominent organizations supported by industry liberals…” Another was CFA…which Rampell describes as…”Movie colony progressives formed the Committee for the First Amendment to resist the witch-hunt, and produced a radio program titled Hollywood Fights Back.”

Now the fact is that the Hollywood 10 were in front of congress because they had been identified by other sworn witnesses. And the issue wasn’t a matter of the First Amendment (as Rampell tries to contend), free speech, but of the Fifth Amendment rights. Free speech wasn’t the issue, membership (or former membership) in an organization that was considered an agent of a foreign government was the issue. And after the fall of the Soviet Union, records were found that documented the financial support of the CPUSA by the Soviets.

The real heros were not the Hollywood 10, rather those that did name members of the Communist Party. And the cowards were those members and former members who didn’t have the courage to put their name on their actions.

In the end, however, the “progressives” won the day by never answering the question, and by attacking the right to ask the question. If ever the fog of (cold) war obscured the facts and the truth, it is the story of the Hollywood Ten. And Ed Rampell and Written By use those same tactics of cultural Marxism to now try and make the Hollywood 10 a story about the studio trying to steal your residuals. Again…George Orwell would appreciate the WGA’s use of double-think.

To understand the true nexus of Mr. Rampell’s article to the Hollywood 10, you have to dig deeper than his innuendos. You need to study the origins of cultural Marxism in America. You have to know why WW1 and the Russian Revolution shocked communists and left them looking at global failure. You have to learn who Georg Lukacs and Antonio Gramsci and Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno and Erich Fromm and Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse were/are. These men are the cornerstones of the Frankfurt School. They, and the cultural Marxism they developed and disseminated is the true story behind the Hollywood 10…and Ed Rampell’s and the WGA’s attempt to make that story part of the current negotiations.

Addressing Anonymous up above Mr. Ireland’s screed: you’re assuming the WGA constitution (not to mention by-laws and whatever other documents we’re not looking at) is crystal clear and that you’re reading it right when you say the strike auth vote requires the Board to call a strike. I’m just not sure that’s the case. I’m also not sure what any of it has to do with what I see as the issues at hand: how do we get a fair deal from the AMPTP, and more importantly, how do we get them to sit down and get serious, and stop with this joke proposal of gutting our resids formula and using this profit-based b.s. To me, the way we achieve those ends is get a big yes on this strike authorization vote.

Yes, I am assuming that I know how to read. I understand that’s a difficult proposition to accept.

The wording of the constitution could barely be any more clear. Personally, I think following the constitution is important. Why have it if it’s meaningless?

As for the issue at hand, we’ve dealt ourselves out whether we vote yes or not (and a yes vote means we’re going out on November 1). The DGA is going to make our deal for us and we’re going to end up having lost a fortune while sitting out on strike from Nov. 1st onward to end up with the same deal we would’ve gotten had we stayed on the job.

Anonymous: The DGA isn’t going to make our deal for us if we can get the AMPTP to get serious. That’s the whole point of the strike authorization vote: to get the AMPTP to negotiate instead of posture.

Mr. Elliott is incorrect that the WGA constitution requires that a strike authorization vote means the Guild must strike before negotiating further.

In your opinion, of course. An opinion based, no doubt, on careful examination of the relative articles of the WGAw Constitution, which you will now cite as evidence supporting your opinion. Right?

That doesn’t even make sense — why would the Guild hamstring itself like that in negotiations?

It doesn’t hamstring the Guild in negotiations, because it presumes that the AMPTP has already stopped negotiating. That the terms that are on the table that are unacceptable to the Negotiating Committte, and that the AMPTP’s position is so entrenched, the Committee believes that the threat of a strike alone is no longer effective as leverage — the only thing that will get the AMPTP to move off that position is a strike itself.

Becuase that’s what a strike threat is: the threat that the AMPTP will be deprived of the membership’s labor, services and work product if they don’t negotiate with us.

We have a strike threat from the moment the contract expires until the moment we ratify a new contract. It doesn’t require a membership vote to exist, because it can’t *not exist. The constitution sets forth the process by which that threat can be implemented, and since that’s the process that was initiated by the Negotaiting Committee’s recommendation to the Board, that’s the process that the strike authorization vote serves.

• Ted

Craig —

As I understand it, it’s the production companies who cap what show runners make on the “writers” line of their budget, in order to reduce the contributions they have to make to our health and pension. I don’t suspect that show runners themselves decide to aportion more money to their “producing” duties. Your beef on this issue is with the studios and networks. And perhaps it’s something we should be discussing as the strike looms.

Ashley…if you have it in you to make a rebutal, please do. The guild is pulling out all the corks to push for a strike vote and I’m pointing out their dishonesty as it relates to the Blacklist.

Jon:

Absolutely correct. And still, it doesn’t mitigate the fact that we screenwriters shoulder a disproportionate burden of the Guild’s income, and yet still often get overlooked or flat out screwed when it comes to negotiation priorities.

Folks, we’re looking into Ted’s interpretation of the Constitution.

Initial feedback indicates that his view is not shared by WGAw’s General Counsel.

That doesn’t mean he’s wrong, btw.

There is historical precedent, however, that contradicts Ted’s view of the Constitution.

Yet, as always, “precedent” doesn’t mean “proper.”

Once we get a more definitive answer, we’ll report it. In the meantime, it appears that the union’s position is that an passed SAV does not require a strike, nor does it even require a significant cessation of negotiation.

That’s why I’m reading this blog, Craig. Thanks for finding out the WGA counsel’s interpretation of the constitution. I feel like my “yes” leans a bit more in that direction now. As I’ve said before, I may not agree with you and Ted on some issues, like the benefit of the writers’ co-ops to the guild at large, but I voted for you two because you’re smart, you inform the membership, you believe in the Guild, and you are always thoughtful and insightful with your reasoning. I wish one of you were on the board now. Anyway, keep it up.

Anon I

Craig —

Isn’t there a cap on the dues screenwriters pay? If you sell a screenplay for 1 million dollars, you don’t pay 1 1/4% on a million, right?

1.5% on every dollar you make.

C.

Craig:

“Initial feedback indicates that [Ted’s] view is not shared by WGAw’s General Counsel.”

Okay— I’m not a lawyer here, but I’m re-reading the constitution, and I just can’t see how where you’d find any other procedure for a strike other than that the board asks for a vote, the members vote to approve, and if they do, the board shall order all its members to strike.

There is nothing there about giving a strike authorization contingent upon anything. The language says that a strike authorization “shall” lead directly to a strike order.

The constitution does not say that a vote to strike is a mere precursor to the strike. It says that the vote to strike is the direct cause of the strike. The ballot question:

“Should the WGAW Board of Directors and the WGAE Council be authorized to declare a strike, if and when they deem it advisable to do so, in connection with negotiations for the 2007 WGA [MBA]”

Cannot be taken as anything other than a straw poll about whether the members believe the constitution should be amended to give the board direct power to declare a strike.

I don’t think Ted’s wrong about this. There is no stated constitutional authority for membership to transfer strike power to the board, nor for the board to wield this discretionary power in the bylaws (that I could find).

I’m not so cynical as to think we’re being mislead, but it sounds like maybe they made a procedural mistake here and may not realize it themselves.

AYAAW

1.5% on every dollar you make.

A little more info, since i have the constitution’s scrolls already unrolled. From Article VIII:

Regular non-pensioned members pay $25.00 a quarter + 1.5% of “gross income from employment and the sale or option of material within the Guild’s jurisdiction”

There’s a bookkeeping fee of $10/quarter if you don’t file your earnings or don’t pay dues.

I believe that the extra .5% was added relatively recently to supplement the strike fund.

AYAAAW

Craig —

But you get better health care, right? Or at the very least, the doctor’ll only use the special stethescope he keeps under a warmer, and not the one from the ice-chest, right? Better yet, when you leave a urine sample, its not into a plastic dixie cup? You leave your urine in a cappuccino mug. :-) But, I digress.

Okay, back on my own machine. TED: I think the confusion (“disagreement”) stems from the sequential language of the Constitution. I’ve looked at it carefully (again), and I think the key to understanding the current interpretation is found early on: all the language on which you rely (“shall”), is based on a sequence of events that begins with “IF (my emphasis)pursuant to the procedures provided for in subsection c. of said Section 1. of subdivision A., the negotiating committee shall recommend the imposition of a restraining order…”

That’s the key — the Neg. Comm. isn’t yet recommending the imposition of a restraining order (strike), but it’s asking for the membership to ratify or approve that action SHOULD IT BECOME NECESSARY.

And, since the responsibility for interpreting the Constitution is delegated to the Board (we don’t have a Supreme Court to fulfill that function), it’s up to the Board to determine the sequence of events/ballots/meetings that leads to a strike. And for that, they look to our precedents in particular, and custom and practice in labor negotiations in general, for guidance.

Thus, the current situation.

One thing I’m wondering about is how much communication there is with the other guilds? It seems like in this particular case, the main point the writers are fighting for, internet residuals, is something that the directors and actors guilds would be high interested in. Surely a united front in this regard would be beneficial to everyone, even if there are many other points that are only relevant to on guild or another.

Has any effort been made to come up with a united strategy? Is it safe to assume that such efforts might be happening behind closed doors?

I’m a man, goddamit!!

Carl —

Interestingly, my “strict constuctionalist” reading of the constitutional process for imposing a restraining order does not preclude the 1977 events you describe.

It only precludes that, between the time the Negotiating Committee recommends the strike and (assuming majority approval at all stages) the Board & Council issuing a strike order, the Negotiating Committee cannot make any further compromises on its pattern of demands in order to reach agreement on terms with the AMPTP.

However, if the AMPTP is willing to make compromises on its proposals to reach agreement on terms with the Negotiating Committee, not only can the Committee consider those compromises, but, because the initial condition that prompted the Negotiating Committee to initiate the restraining order process has changed, the process itself becomes void.

So I guess you guys are going to find some other point of minutae to point at to call me a “strict constructionalist” in order to deflect focus away from my real point — which, by the way, was this:

The authority to determine whether or not we strike rests not with the Board & Council, as Guild leadership has been claiming, but with the membership collectively.

If we vote to strike … then we strike.

Says so right in the constitution.

• Ted

From John August’s blog:

“I like that you keep updating us on The Nines, but the big issue is the strike vote. At least to working workers. How ’bout an in-depth post on that issue with your thoughts?”

–Anonymous (from the previous post’s comment section)

“Anon, I’m not on the WGA Board, nor on the Negotiating Committee, so I don’t have any special information or insight. All I could offer is conjecture, and that would be a mistake. I’m a fairly high-profile writer, so anything I blog would be given unwarranted authority. That’s why I’m not commenting publicly.

At the Screenwriters’ Dinner earlier this year, I taped something for a videopodcast that may show up one of these months. They asked about the (then upcoming) negotiations, and I described how my family was very quiet and Midwestern. When there were disagreements, they were handled in private, in hushed tones. But some of my friends’ families were always shouting at each other. I thought they hated each other, but that was just they way they communicated. They fought; they made up; everything went on as normal. Some families just have a lot of Big Drama, and once you accept that, it’s much less uncomfortable.

I try to remind myself of that when I see public spats between powerful entities who obviously have a lot of mutual interest. I don’t think Mom and Dad are going to get divorced. They just have stuff to work out, and it’s going to get loud for a while.”

End of John August blog entry.

Okay, the reason I posted this was that it gave me a sick feeling, though I haven’t analyzed it yet. But it sounds like he’s an observer and has nothing at stake. At least, on first blush. I’m sweating it out, here, and love the fact that writers all over the income spectrum are going to support all other writers. But, maybe, this guy isn’t. Ted and Craig, don’t lash out. I know there are other interpretations of this. Everyone’s vote is private, etc. He has a right to his opinion. It doesn’t mean he doesn’t support the strike, etc. But like I said, it still gave me that sick feeling… BTW, I didn’t post a comment on his blog because this is where the real debate is.

A lot of this discussion has been about parsing messages. Parsing reality is a good thing to do in that process.

First, about the SAV. It’s not going to be parsed by AMPTP for nuance about whether or not we like or trust or believe in the agendas, hidden or otherwise, of Writers United. The opportunity offered by the SAV is to tell the Core Companies of AMPTP their offer is unacceptable.

Which brings up the interpretations of what a strike authorization does. In terms of what really happened every time in my memory we voted to authorize a strike, we kept negotiating. If a SAV prevented negotiations, we never would have had the last minute settlement of 1977.

As for fearing retaliation from WU, what exactly can they do to any of us? I’m close to Eric Hughes and Ron Parker, and know that we all, and J.F. Lawton too, are vilified behind our backs. But that’s the thing of it - it’s behind our backs. Back in the Walton years, there was exactly the same sort of trashing, and maybe it reached some hyphenates who would become leery of hiring people who “weren’t on the team.” But here’s the thing - how do you parse being anonymous in the face of that sort of thing? It makes WU, and only a few people in WU, seem a whole lot more powerful than they actually are.

They’re, as Craig often says, fungible. Whether or not the Guild is corrupt as J.F. says, it’s not exactly a Chicago Teamsters local. There’s nothing to fear except being afraid in speaking out.

Anonymous:

Why would that give you a sick feeling?

I just have to add, the main ways in which I’m being fucked by my employers aren’t going to change. I understand the main issues that we are addressing with these negotiations, but can anyone explain to me why I have to write 8 drafts for the price of one? Or why I’ll get a check from the studio three months after turning something in? Why is everyone cool with this?

Anonymous asked:

I understand the main issues that we are addressing with these negotiations, but can anyone explain to me why I have to write 8 drafts for the price of one? Or why I’ll get a check from the studio three months after turning something in? Why is everyone cool with this?

No, everyone isn’t cool about this. Enforcing the MBA has been an issue for the past twenty years. The will to truly enforce the MBA on matters such as late payment and free rewrites hasn’t been there, and even the arbitration the Guild lost was filed on weak grounds.

Some of the reluctance to actually confront management on these day to day affronts can be laid to a culture of fear in the Guild which comes from the Blacklist days. Some may come from other sources, as J.F. Lawton believes.

It will take membership standing up and not being satisfied with 1.2% of 20% of a full effort by the Guild to turn things around.

I think Ted’s analysis of the WGA constitution is correct, but I also think it sidetracks us, since the Constitution is going to mean whatever the current leadership and its counsel say it means. And right now they’re saying the members can authorize a strike but the Board can delay ordering it until the Board sees fit.

I’d like to return to the question of the SAV itself. I’ve read the back-and-forth and talked to other writers, and I honestly don’t see the upside of a “yes” vote. As far as I can tell, there are two reasons to vote yes: 1) to empower the negotiating committee so that management will negotiate more seriously; and 2) to show management we won’t be pushed around. The second is kind of silly if you think about it, and certainly no reason to start a labor war. The first reason, to empower the negotiating committee, sounds nice in theory but simply does not square with reality. Back in the 1980’s a writers’ strike might put some fear into the companies, but that was before they were taken over by giant conglomerates. Does anyone really believe Viacom or Disney or GE or News Corp. fear a writers’ strike? But more than that, I think management just doesn’t take the current leadership seriously as negotiating partners. When WE think of the negotiating committee, we think of some of the most successful writers and showrunners in the industry. But management can only see Patric and David — the ones who refused to start negotiations in January, who launched a corporate campaign against them, who disrupted their shareholders meetings, who went to Europe to try and undermine their relationships with foreign distributors, who testified before the FCC against product placement. Management has concluded that the current WGA leadership cannot be taken seriously no matter who is sitting at the table, so they’ve set their sights on an early deal with the DGA. In other words, they now consider us irrelevant. So, putting aside theory and focusing on reality, I just don’t see the real advantage of a yes vote.

Is there an advantage in a no vote? I would like to think a no vote might get the current leadership to change its ways, but that seems about as likely as a positive SAV impacting management. So I don’t know what I’m going to do. I really resent being put in this position after only a week or so of bargaining, when both sides are still in the posturing stage. I feel like “strike” was written in red marker and circled on a whiteboard at 3rd and Fairfax two years ago, and the SAV is just one more inevitable milepost along the way. In the end that may be why I’ll end up voting “no,” because the current leadership was hellbent on destruction from day one, and I have to find some way to express my dismay with that kind of irresponsible conduct.

I’m not sure what’s so queasy-making about what John said. He was characterizing some sense of optimism…a belief that even if things sound bad publicly, there’s a chance that privately progress might be made.

I tend to agree with him on that.

What’s the objection?

“I understand the main issues that we are addressing with these negotiations, but can anyone explain to me why I have to write 8 drafts for the price of one? Or why I’ll get a check from the studio three months after turning something in? Why is everyone cool with this?”

One of the problems is that the MBA uses the word “shall” a lot, which, as we now know, means “may”. We don’t actually have the authority to enforce many of the MBA provisions because we included the incorrect wording.

For a random example, on Page 81 of the 2004 MBA: “Every writer on a week-to-week or term basis shall receive a salary at the rate of not less than the amount per week specified below for the respective period designated.”

The MBA is full of such language. If only we would’ve used the word “Must”, we could solve many of these problems. Why we agreed to make so many of the terms optional is a mystery to me.

I now this is going to piss you off, Craig, but here it goes. I guess what gave me the “sick feeling” is that he writes as if the strike doesn’t affect him. I didn’t read it the way you did, but I see your point. And I do think I have a point to. He seems to say, talk amongst yourselves, I’m above it all. Like he’s way above the MBA and these petty things don’t matter. I’m curious to see how others read it on this blog because on his blog, there isn’t any discussion of substantive issues. FYI, my yes vote is pretty much assured, so, at least, let me be mad that I’ll be on strike and John doesn’t really care, IMHO. Not that he should or has to. Hope that exlains it.

On another point. To Anonymous #97. I’d love more than life itself to stp doing three drafts for every one draft and get paid on time. But this goes to the solitary of the Guild. The only real way to stop this is to know that everyone is refusing to do this. How the hell do you that? How many times have I heard from my agent, well xxxxx did ten drafts, so get to work if you want to keep this going? And, xxxxx, isn’t just the journeyman, it’s the million guys, too. Either everyone stops or no CAN stop. I guess there must be a real-world solution out there, but I haven’t seen it.

Hi, all — for anyone who wants answers to any of the bunch o’ interesting questions raised here about the strike auth vote, there are several informational meetings scheduled with the WGA dudes, including a new one just slotted for tomorrow, for those of us working for The Man during the week. The one tomorrow’s at the fabulous Sportsman’s Lodge in Studio City at 11am (4234 Coldwater Canyon, corner of CC and Ventura). John Bowman (head of the Neg Commitee) will be there, allegedly. There will be other meetings on the 9th (Hyatt in Century City), 11th (Sportsmen’s Lodge), and the 16th (Beverly Hilton), all at 7pm. Just FYI.

I’m friends with John, so my natural inclination is to defend him, but even if I didn’t know him, I think I’d still be a bit puzzled as to how you read all that into his post.

I do know that John does care about what’s happening. All he seems to be saying on his blog is that his perspective is that a lot of what we’re reading in the press is the result of sword-rattling and bluster.

That simply doesn’t translate to “…and I could care less either way.”

The WGA dudes are a bunch of guys who hang out and chillax even when they’re not fighting for your right to party.

Fuck yeah they do!

I agree with anonymous, Craig. John’s post reads like he doesn’t care. He’s writing about someone else’s family to use his analogy, not his. Maybe that’s a little strong, but it’s succinct. It doesn’t sway my vote, but just reinforces that this strike affects some more than others. But we know that already, as shown on this board, so let’s get on with the other discussions going on here, anonymous.

Anon I

ANONYMOUS wrote: “The MBA is full of such language. If only we would’ve used the word “Must”, we could solve many of these problems. Why we agreed to make so many of the terms optional is a mystery to me.”

God, I hope you didn’t attend law school. Or college. Do you really think that “shall” equates with “optional”? “Shall” means “will” and “will” means “must” and “Yank” is a good American…

The problem with free rewrites and late payment isn’t one of language but of will, time, manpower and priorities. Right now, setting a structure for Internet distribution is the #1 priority for the Guild as it effects the largest # of members.

As to free rewrites, we recently lost a major court case which ruled that producers are not agents of the studios so their asking for free writing isn’t a breach of the MBA. We all know that’s utter bullshit but that’s how the court ruled and I imagine the Guild lawyers are a bit gun-shy to go after that problem legally right now.

The truth is, if you don’t want to do 8 free drafts DON’T DO THEM. What’s the worst that will happen? You’ll get fired? Big shit. I’ve been fired off most films I’ve written. It is NOT a career-ender. I wish more writers would understand that and not feel cowed.

You can also tell the producers/studio execs that it’s against WGA rules to work for free and if you’re caught you’ll be thrown out of the Guild and you just can’t chance that. Blame the Guild.

As to late payments, what are you paying your agent and lawyer for if not to get you (and them) paid on time? Do not start writing until you receive a commencement check. Do not hand in a draft until your reps are promised that a delivery check is waiting to be mailed. If the studio then fucks you over your reps will be only more motivated to get your money asap after being lied to.

And what the Hell did John August say that was so “above it all”? Maybe the Anon who wrote that is an ESL student or has some beef against John or his success…

I definitely don’t agree with Anon’s assessment of John’s blog entry.

All I see in his analogy is the idea that, although things may seem angry and bitter and world-ending to ‘outsiders’, to the people actually taking part in the arguments it’s not nearly as bad. It’s just how they handle things. In no way do I see him commenting on his personal stance or investment in the issues.

And the comment about him using “someone else’s family” in his argument? It’s because his family isn’t like that. How can he write about “his family” if it doesn’t apply? It’s not some tricky subtle message to tell us he doesn’t consider himself part of the WGA “family”.

All he’s saying is “It’s not as bad as it seems”. Anything else you read into it is purely in your head, not in his words.

Everyone knows what ‘mid-western’ is code for: goyim. I think what John August is saying, basically, is that unlike his family, the WGA and AMPTP are full of noisy Jews. He’s an anti-semite!

“When an “impasse in negotiations” is reached, and after the membership has voted for the strike authorization, the Board “ shall issue an order directing all members of the Guild to cease rendering services”.” I could be reading this totally wrong, but the implication in the above is that both conditions need to be met before a strike shall be called. It doesn’t specify what order they have to happen in. JAT.

“God, I hope you didn’t attend law school. Or college. Do you really think that “shall” equates with “optional”? “Shall” means “will” and “will” means “must” and “Yank” is a good American…”

I was just quoting the apparently official WGA position on the word “shall” as it pertains to our constitution. Ted has been making the same argument about “shall” meaning “will” and “will” meaning “must” and some people, no disrespect to Carl Gottlieb or any of our other esteemed Guild members making such arguments, are saying he’s wrong.

I can’t believe that the WGA would say that a word means one thing when it limits the Guild and the complete opposite when it limits the studios. Some people might call that hypocritical.

Not me, though.

I also disagree with the anonymous who didn’t like what John had to say. I don’t interpret what he said as he doesn’t care.

But I will say that his “statement” is rather self-serving (high-profile writer so he has to careful what he says) as well as useless (won’t say he supports or is against the SAV even he writes a blog on screenwriting and comments on everything else.) That’s my 2 cents.

But the guy has every right to say or not say what he wants. And, anonymous, you can get all the opinions you need here and on the WA boards and at Sportsman’s Lodge tomorrow.

I hate disagreeing with Ted because he’s damn smart and engaging and we ran for office together two years ago against the WU machine and got our asses kicked.

So I won’t disagree with him any more, and will watch The Drama of Negotiations unfold from my seat on the Negotiating Committee, where I say what I believe needs to be said, and will vote my conscience and experience.

I look forward to the results of the Strike Authorization vote, whatever they are, and the ongoing process, wherever it leads. As for any further parsing of our WGA’s Constitution’s text, and discussion of Cultural Marxist revisionism, I’ll happily give over and watch from the wings.

What leverage do we have besides a strike? (Feel free to treat this question as real or rhetorical.)

What does the Bomb think about all this strike hoo-hah?

I miss his unique voice - you know, the one so easily copied by other people - especially in these trying times.

C.O.L.

LA TImes: No happy ending in sight

I can’t believe you are going to support a group of talentless morons who desperately wish they could have been Red Diaper Babies, rather than the coddled little upper-class Ivy League shits they are. You can know them by their work, and going to the IMDb reveals a group of halfwits when it comes to putting ink on paper.

We couldn’t win this shit 20 years ago when we were up against stand-alone studios run by people who actually wanted to make movies rather than widgets. Thinking we can beat studios that are now minor arms of major global conglomerates is right up there with believing in pixie dust and that the sun rises in the west.

No wonder I’ve called this “union” the Wanker’s Guild of America for the past 20 years - not one of the “reformers” who came along in that time ever accomplished squat.

Writers like yourself, Craig, with Major Bucks Sweetheart Deals at Fox, which will be unaffected by anything that happens come rain or come shine, need to consider that the average member of the Guild is going to be hit worse by this strike than the last one, and that one turned the writer’s universe upside-down and inside-out, destroying a system that actually allowed writers to have decent lives. That doesn’t exist now, and it’s the result of the strike. The morons back then struck for pie-in-the-sky and ended up killing the goose that laid the Golden egg. It doesn’t fucking matter what they think they’re going to get - we live worse for the last time this happened, and the average Guild member will live worse for this.

Any member of this guild who doesn’t go financial core between now and the end of them month deserves what happens to them on the grounds that morons need to be smacked.

Someone should take those halfwit little trust-fund babies running this so-called union out in a dark alley and give them a serious Life Lesson.

Anonymous asked:

I’d love to know how many careers the past striked ended, if any. I just met a parent at my kid’s school who moved out of LA during the last strike. It ended his career.

I don’t know how many total, but I do personally know of 20 who were out, and I can say personally that the strike derailed my own career at a crucial point that was never fully recovered, and I also know that before the strike of 1988, writers over 40 weren’t terrified of losing their careers for the crime of having a birthday.

And I’d still like to find Patric in a dark alley and personally prove to him that auld phartz are still a force to be reckoned with. I’m sure that whatever the outcome of this strike, he and the rest of the Dear Leaders will continue to survive on mommy and daddy’s trust fund.

Has any good come from a strike? I don’t know. The idiots back in 1960 traded away the possessory credit for guaranteed first class plane tickets when they were required to go visit the set during production.

Wow - that was a truly intelligent move, eh?

And if anyone wants to say this is trolling, that there are multiple posts here closely in time, it’s because I don’t drop by here every day and am working my way through the comments section here.

BTW - J.F. Lawton, I commend you for using your real name, given “union politics” as they are and your position in the industry.

Everyone knows what ‘mid-western’ is code for: goyim. I think what John August is saying, basically, is that unlike his family, the WGA and AMPTP are full of noisy Jews. He’s an anti-semite!

Posted by: Mike S at October 5, 2007 3:01 PM

Ah yes, when your side runs out of arguments that make sense, accuse the other side of anti-Semitism. Isn’t that how you keep things working in Washington?

Sorry, idiot, but as a good writer friend of mine in New York puts it (ahd he speaks from long experience), “They’re not Jews out there; they’re just schmucks with Jewish names” - and you so well demonstrate the truth of that.

“Midwestern values” include a whole lot of things you have no idea of, you sorry little putz.

TC…Mike was obviously joking.

Please dial back your tone, or I’m gonna start deleting your comments. You can make your points without calling people putzes. If you can’t, then go make them somewhere else.

For maximum dramatic effect, I like to imagine TC’s postings being read aloud in the voice of retired detective Lew Staziak from “Andy Barker, P.I.”

And TC, if you’re willing to elaborate on it, what was the cause-and-effect, exactly, between the ‘88 strike and your own career? Big deals going away, or people bearing grudges, or what? I certainly understand writers being forced to leave the business (or leave town altogether) and go do something else for a living because a strike starved them out…but given that you’re still working, what was it that changed for you, post-strike?

(Sincere questions. Those events happened before my time, so I can’t say I’ve ever witnessed the process firsthand, as some of those posting here have.)

Seriously.

When will THE BOMB weigh in on this issue?

I eagerly await his post or the post(s) of his fakers.

Who, incidentally, are DA BOMB!

WOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!

Craig, Don’t delete the TC’s post. I come here to listen to all sides. I know I’m probably voting yes, because I believe I have no choice, as pointed out by the many arguments on this blog, but I want to hear what those who are against the strike has to say. You guys on this board tend get defensive when someone disagrees with you and I think that’s what TC was saying by taking the sarcastic anti-semite bit and torturing it to make his point. Because someone criticizes John August (who wouldn’t be hurt as much as the writers TC refers to) for giving such a weak neutral comment on the strike, that criticism is met with an ad hominem attack (not all of them, but some.) Anyway, the point is that this potential strike will hurt others much more than some and it’s already doing that. But what can you do? I don’t know.

I didn’t delete his post. And I think I have a clear history of being antipathetic to strikes as a labor strategy.

If we strike, I will be seriously pissed off at our leadership.

You’re right, Craig. Just getting carried away… You have stated that you’re not into this strike, at least, for right now, but see no other option than to vote yes on the SAV.

TC and others, I would like to hear more about the 88 strike and how it ended careers? I think the stories would have to be anecdotal as I’m sure it can’t be quantified.

Also, I was talking to an executive on Friday and she said that they’ve (her company) made a point of putting writer/directors on some of their movies, so they’re covered in case WGAw strikes. Somewhere on these boards, it was mentioned that there’s a loophole about writing during production if you’re a WGA writer. Can we close it before we strike? I know that’s ridiculous, but thought I’d ask! But it’s annoying to know some writers are going to write for the man when we’re supposed to be dissing the man!

Being new to the guild myself, (as in 6 weeks new) I also would like to hear how the ‘88 strike negatively impacted careers.

FWIW - I went to the sportsman’s lodge yesterday, sat a few feet away from Verrone, Bowman, et al and here’s my takeaway: 1)That only 25 or so writers showed up doesn’t speak well to our interest level in what’s going on. I hope it’s because everybody had already made plans to attend the other meetings to either listen or express their views. 2) The leadership firmly believe that their strategy is the right one and will be best for all. I won’t pretend to understand the complexities of labor negotiations, but I don’t doubt their motives. After yesterday, I would characterize their general attitude as “we’re going to play hardball with the big boys.” Can’t say I’m optimistic that this is going to work, but I don’t think being “reasonable” from the get go would get us what we need either.

For me, a tv writer, the strike-worthy issues are internet compensation and organizing non-scripted tv. Internet compensation obviously affects us all as in the coming years distribution platforms will change such that dvds, tv reruns, direct-to-video, etc. will all be effectively replaced with downloads or streaming video. Of course that doesn’t mean we should give up our share in the current models, but we need a fair deal for what’s coming. As to the latter, with reality and gameshows comprising a quarter of primetime programming, getting those positions covered gives us leverage down the road that we don’t have now. And not just for tv but for all guild issues. The greater the variety of content production that falls under our jurisdiction, the more weight we’ll carry. Though apparently we (as in tv writers back in the 80’s) failed to stand unified with the feature writers when the home video deal was negotiated, today there’s so much more crossover that I think tv and feature writers are sympathetic to one another’s issues such that we won’t be a house divided again.

I do think a November strike will have impact if both sides don’t make any significant progress in the next two weeks (which I believe is still possible). Studios have been planning for a July work stoppage, shutting them down now will hurt. Sure their pockets are deeper than ours, but shareholders and board members back east will not be tolerant of corporate execs who can’t settle a a labor dispute with a bunch of whiny writers, especially when another with a whole lot of high-maintenance actors is coming down the pike.

I really hope we don’t have to strike, but I think the issues at stake are worth fighting for.

RE: the notion that John August (and others of his ilk) has nothing to lose in a strike…

A strike affects everybody. Top writers are risking millions of dollars in lost income. Working stiff writers will be out less money on an absolute basis, but they may have trouble paying the bills. Top showrunners (like the ones on the NegCom) risk derailing their own shows by taking them off the air for most of the season.

A strike affects John August, and you, and me in different ways. But nobody is “above it all”.

Hypothetical:

Suppose the WGA makes a deal before the SAG and DGA contracts expire, either with or without a strike. How likely is it that SAG might find the terms of the WGA deal unacceptable (in terms of their pattern bargaining implications) and end up striking anyway, thus putting a lot of us out of work (at least on the TV side, and I would think in features as well) anyway?

Not particularly. Pattern bargaining essentially rules the day. WGA and SAG and the DGA do talk, but the WGA and SAG are much closer right now. The WGA won’t take a deal if SAG tells them it’s unacceptable for their membership, for precisely the reason you state.

We’ll get screwed.

Jim mentions; “shareholders and board members back east will not be tolerant of corporate execs who can’t settle a a labor dispute with a bunch of whiny writers”

Actually, labor disputes can be an excellent way to trim the fat for corporate entities. Gives them excuses to make major lay offs as well as making other cuts that might not seem so popular. It is not unusual for the Company to take a certain tact in order to force the Union out on strike. It’s one way to break the Union, and, some say, was the Company’s reasoning behind the UPS/Teamsters strike. Fortunatly for IBT, the rank and file rallied behind non monetary issues (giving part timers that often worked two shifts a day) full time status w/ benefits, and were able to persevere.

I think the AMPTP is angling for a strike here. Just as the WGA wants to rework the residual system, so do they. My fear is that the Company has far more resources to weather a long strike then the WGA does. The AMPTP has recently settled disputes w/ the Canadian guilds, and even with the currency being equal, w/ continuing rebates by the Canadian gov’t, I think TV production will be only temporarily stalled. Fox has production facilities in Rosarita, which will make it easier for their feature production. I think ‘reality’ programing will be filler only until they can get up and running in Canada and other markets.

I’m Union through and through, but I don’t understand why the WGA leadership feels that their old school garment worker tactics will work in the truely global economy within our industry, when it doesn’t work in any other industry any more. At least for garment workers, there’s a timely delivery issue - one which really doesn’t apply in our case. In the recent UAW strike, they talked about having enough supply for some 6 months- which by all accounts is way too much inventory, so a strike that slowed production could have actually benefited the Company. I have yet to see what enforcable gains the UAW got from the new contract, over the deal being offered prior to the strike.

FWIW - I went to the sportsman’s lodge yesterday, sat a few feet away from Verrone, Bowman, et al and here’s my takeaway: 1)That only 25 or so writers showed up doesn’t speak well to our interest level in what’s going on. I hope it’s because everybody had already made plans to attend the other meetings to either listen or express their views.

Jim, are you sure this meeting was even open to the general membership? The only meetings I’m aware of to discuss the negotiations are on the 9th, 11th and 16th, and then there’s the meeting on the 18th so people who haven’t mailed in their SAV ballots can drop them off in person. I haven’t heard of any meeting for October 6, so unless I missed something, that may explain why only 25 or so members attended…

<< RE: the notion that John August (and others of his ilk) has nothing to lose in a strike…

A strike affects everybody. Top writers are risking millions of dollars in lost income. Working stiff writers will be out less money on an absolute basis, but they may have trouble paying the bills. Top showrunners (like the ones on the NegCom) risk derailing their own shows by taking them off the air for most of the season.

A strike affects John August, and you, and me in different ways. But nobody is “above it all”. >>

Anonanonanon, the rich will ride it out and suffer less than the working stiff writers. Sorry to say it so bluntly, but that’s the way it is. I agree that nobody is above it all, but it’s clear that some writers are sacrificing more in a strike. Period. As I said that’s okay, but to sugarcoat it is a diservice. If I read more posts like this or hear this in the meetings next, it might be enough to switch my vote for yes to no on the SAV.

“Anonanonanon, the rich will ride it out and suffer less than the working stiff writers. Sorry to say it so bluntly, but that’s the way it is. “

Spoken like a true Union member.

Just what you guys need right now, a class war.

I guess they’ve already won. Will be an interesting 6 months.

Hey, it’s not a class war, my friend. It’s the troops supporting the cause. In our union, free speech is allowed. Republican use the term class war to get the blood boiling and that’s because a complex issue is hard to digest. Facts are facts and we all can accept them. Take some time to see the complexities and then comment. Solidarity doesn’t mean no difference of opinion. I guess you don’t support the cause because you just want one voice.

John August was looking at the negotiation from the point of view that, no matter how the two sides conduct themselves during negotiations, at some point, the negotiations will yeild a new contract.

• Ted

the Oct 6 meeting was, I guess, called at the last minute. I was told about it Friday by our show’s strike captain and also saw mention of it posted here. I guess the word didn’t get out or people already had plans, I just thought more people would be there.

As far as below-the-line’s response - I don’t see how the studios can use a strike to decrease the number of WGA jobs. If you’re talking about other studio jobs that will be permanently lost as a result of a work stoppage, perhaps you can be more specific. Nor do I see how examples of production moving out of LA are impacted by this potential strike any more than they have been by general fiscal concerns in the past. Unless you mean network tv shows shows created by foreign entities employing only Canadians and Mexicans from grip to showrunner, which, well… that would be interesting tv to say the least. And studios and networks do operate on cyclical time frames, needing fall line-ups for upfronts and tentpoles for summer. Which is why I believe the more they are allowed to prepare for a strike, the weaker our bargaining position will become.

Have Verrone et al been maneuvering for a strike all along? It seems like it. But it also seems to me that within that they determined they needed a wholly credible and impenetrable strike threat as a bargaining chip. In practical terms there may not be much difference between the two. One is strike happy, the other is strike ready.

On a separate note - I very much agree with Craig that tv writers guild fees are disproportionate to feature writers’ contributions, though I would also say that a great deal of the money earned by tv writer/producers is earned for producing. Still, perhaps writer/producers should pay more that 1.5%.

“In our union, free speech is allowed.”

No, it’s not.

With all the hand-wringing on this thread from “professional writers” about how non-professional writers have no idea what they’re talking about, I find it remarkable that the same people have no hesitation to plunge into an area of which they have a totally amateur understanding (labor law) and make broad, sweeping pronouncements about what the WGA’s Constitution and “federal law” say about the Guild’s Strike Authorization vote. Ted, you’re a talented writer, but not, apparently, any kind of lawyer. You should have checked with a lawyer BEFORE you made your impassioned, but non-professional interpretation of this issue. Luckily, another participant has pointed out your flawed reading. But you and Craig run a popular and influential blog. While it’s understandable to see the various studio plants and myopic hacks like Ireland making flawed arguments, I had hoped you both would hold yourselves to a higher standard. The reality that Craig has come to, that there is no choice but to vote “yes,” is simply that - the reality. Anyone who votes “no” is saying they don’t want to have a union. And to preempt the knee-jerk reaction, I am not any kind of supporter of Verrone & Co. But what I know, because I do have an understanding of these issues, is that whatever the union’s flaws, it is far better, as Craig has argued, than not having one. The time for “sending a message to the leadership” has long since gone. Despite, again, all the hand-wringing, it would be wise to listen to John August and recognize that public rhetoric and posturing is all part of the process. The SAV is part of the process. Having the courage to stand with your union isn’t easy. Especially because people’s short-term livelihoods are threatened. But, in the long-term, writers deserve to be compensated fairly for their work. Whatever your political point of view, it’s time to understand that real professionals have the courage to stick together in the short-term in order to benefit long-term.

I didn’t realize Carl Gottlieb was an attorney. I just thought he was, like Ted, a hell of a writer.

I’ve talked to two attorneys now and they both agree with Ted’s interpretation.

I don’t think it necessary to question the loyalty or patriotism of those who are against the vote (or believe the way the vote is being handled to be a violation of our constitution and that that might well help us in the short-term and hurt us in the long-term). We’re not against it because we want to hurt the Guild. We’re against it because we believe voting no is the better alternative for the long-term financial health of writers in this industry.

That you believe otherwise doesn’t make either one of us right, necessarily, regardless of who else might agree with you. Personally, I believe that real professionals can respect the opinions of those who disagree (even when they’re so very obviously wrong, like with the interpretation of the constitution giving the Board, rather than the membership, the power to strike).

Everyone has a right to a dissenting view and I respect those views and the right of each individual to express them. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous but, frankly, unsurprising. When you lose an argument on the merits, I guess you have to impugn something. Ultimately we agree on one thing - we’ll have to agree to disagree. But it might be time for you to get that third opinion.

I’m sorry. Like with the constitution, I read the words and interpreted them to mean what they said.

Like, when you say that Craig’s says there’s no choice but to vote yes, that’s the reality and that people who vote no are voting to not have a union. That doesn’t sound like respecting the opinion of those who disagree, that’s questioning their loyalty to the union.

Anonymous —

I stand by my reading of the constitution, and can cite precedent in support of that reading — including the 1977 negotiations that, contrary to statements made by others, is completely consistent with my reading (simple way to refute an argument: create a different argument, claim it is the one being made, and then refute that. “Straw Man,” it’s called, and its common feature in internet arguments).

There’s a process for imposing a restraining order as part of a negotiation. The constitutoin allows for an enormous amount of leeway around that process, but if the process is not followed, a strike order issued by the Boards is not legal.

And one step in that process, the final step, is that if the membershp approves a strike action, the Board must issue strike orders.

Other unions’ constitutions allow for a strike authorization that gives their Boards authority to issue strike orders at their discretion — but not ours.

But, here’s the simple question:

Since the process for ratifying a contract is identical to the process for imposing a strike order — IF the Negotiating Committee recommends AND the Boards adopt, THEN the Membership approves or disaproves — would anyone accept this as a “interpretation” of the ratification process:

1. Before negotiations have reached terms that the Negotiating Committee can recommend for ratification, the Negotiating Committee goes to the Boards and recomends taking a “ratification authorization” vote.

2. The Boards adopt the recommendation, and put it the membership for a vote. The memberships vote “Yes.”

3. The Guilds maintain that this gives the Boards the authority to either ratify any contract the Negotiating Commitee recommends, or to reject any contract and send the Negotiating Committee back to the table. No futher membership vote is required, so the membership has no further say on the terms of the contract they’ll be working under.

Does that sound right?

When the Boards puts a strike action or a contract in front of the membership for a vote, it means the Boards have already decided to call a strike or to ratify the contract. All that’s left is for the membership to agree or disagree — and, on these matters, the memberships authority is final.

The constititution could be amended to allow or even mandate the process the Guild is using here — the Teamsters’ constitution, for instance, sets forth a similar process. But, right now, the constitution mandates a process that the Guild claims is irrelevant to the Boards’ actions.

• Ted

Anonymous,

Absolutely not. You have interpreted those words to mean what you’d like them to mean, not what they do mean. Again, I understand it’s easier to vilify your opponent than to provide a substantive argument as to why your contention holds true. Meanwhile, Ted has done some of the heavy lifting for you. Nevertheless, Ted, while I appreciate where you’re coming from, and the rigor you’ve applied to the question, I think it would be helpful if you would share more specifically what you hear from the General Counsel, etc. whenever that happens. I’m not trying to diminish what you’re saying, but there’s more than just a Straw Man argument out there to contradict you.

Anonymous 3000 —

From personal experience, I know that Tony Segall would not permit the Board to enact a policy for which he could not mount a legal defense.

Also from personal experience, I know that Tony’s belief that a policy is legally defensible does not necessarily mean he believes that defense would prevail and the policy would survive a legal challenge.

And, as I’ve mentioned a couple of times, although the Guild’s public statements indicate that the Guild is ignoring Constitutional procedure in this matter, whether or not the Guild is in fact ignoring Constitutoinal procedure in this matter can only be determined based on actions. It could be that, although the membership is being told a strike is not a certainty and that the Board does not want to call a strike, that does not necessarily mean that the Boards did not adopt a recommendation to issue a strike order, and is waiting only for membership approval to issue it.

In other words, the Boards may be telling the truth to members, and are violating the constitutoinal process … or the Boards may be abiding by the constitutoinal process, and are lying to members.

• Ted

I agree with anonymous. On the other hand anonymous has a good point. But anonymous pokes a few holes in both of their arguments.

Hah.

Well, eventually I’ll de-anonymise myself, but until then, here’s a question for Ted—

As indicated in a couple posts above, I tend to agree with your interpretation on the less-than-straightforward constitutionality of this authorization vote.

So the practical question is— what happens from here? Say come the 31st, the board recommends a strike. Is there a risk of a constitutional challenge from one of the members that proper procedures weren’t properly followed? If so, what happens w/the strike? Is it put on hold until there is a ruling (from… whom?) Does it go forward until there’s a ruling? How long would it take, and w/could there be an appeals?

(Or say the opposite happens— say the board decides to hold off on a strike and we’re told to continue to work under the previous contract while negotiations continue. Then some yahoo says “wait, the membership voted for a strike and the constitution says we have to strike.” Same issue.)

I’m just a little unclear as to how these matters are usually resolved.

AYAAW

I haven’t read all the responses, so I apologize if I’m being redundant, but has anyone thought that maybe, just maybe a new non-union product will be exposed to US audiences that strikes a chord and as a result debilitates writers? Obviously I think of IDOL and AMAZING RACE, reality, etc… but British/Canadian imports could pop up during a strike… I mean, the OFFICE here in the states is really good, but it’s not Ricky Gervais. Everyone knows that. And if The Brit OFFICE was a wide release and everyone saw it then the American one wouldn’t have stood a chance. I mean, writers are not Pro-athletes. When the NFL went on strike back in the day the scabs were an embarrassment. And though writing does take a great deal of skill, it’s still an English language skill that you do while sitting on your butt. And because of the net, there are many more people creating content across the globe, all in English… all non-union. Don’t be surprised if some cool Japanese action TV show becomes a hit all because the WGA thought they had a lock on the market. Like the old saying, when one door closes, another opens.

I think Ted might admit that despite his arguments as to the proper constitutional process, there are many other people with more professional experience in labor law who would argue the opposite way. And frankly, the idea of a constitutional challenge at this point would be more than counterproductive. It would be destructive. I quote Craig’s initial piece above, “In this circumstance, I have to trust people that I don’t want to trust, because failing to trust them now will certainly hurt any chance we have as a union to get a decent deal, whereas trusting them might hurt my chance. If the authorization vote is defeated or passes with less than flying colors, the WGA is permanently hamstrung.”

Again, it may not be a pretty picture, but that’s the situation, and that’s why it’s important to vote yes.

For those wondering what would happen if there’s a challenge to the legality of a strike or SAV, anyone can go into court asking for a restraining order on anything. A challenge to the strike process could be started by anyone willing to file for an order.

Alternately, any member of the Guild could go the the Department of Labor with a complaint.

From there on, it’s up to the courts and/or bureaucracy.

Enono-muss,

What are your favorite films and TV shows? Chances are they were created by people who had years if not decades of experience in the craft of storytelling. The shows from other England that might succeed are most likely those written by seasoned professionals.

You’re analogy of the the scab version of the NFL is actually quite accurate. The non WGAw product would be inferior except for some highlights here and there. Just as the scab NFL was.

The shows and films that most people love aren’t good because they’re written by WGAw writers. It’s that those writers are WGAw writers. That’s right most of those writers are in the union because they’re professionals. Just like the NFL. It took years for those guys to get to the NFL. They’re in the union because of it. Not the other way around.

The stories that touch the widest audiences today are usually created by craftsman. This does not negate the prodigies or the internet sensations, etc. But if you look behind the most popular stories, there’s usually an experienced storyteller to be found in the mix.

And yes, there could be something like scab TV and films, but it won’t nearly be as entertaining as you hope.

Just saw the Variety story for tomorrow. Did you know the talks blew up today because we are insisting on doubling the DVD formula? Sheesh. Wouldn’t it be smarter to skip the negotiating sessions and go straight to a strike?

Wait a minute. This is not a new proposal. It’s been in the contract proposals since June. And, oh my god, it suggests doubling the writers take on a $15.00 DVD from four cents to eight cents. What are those writers thinking?

Yeah, but it’s a stupid proposal because it’s a non-starter and everyone frickin’ knows it.

What, like the companies are going to now give in to an increase in DVD residuals after surviving our longest strike ever in ‘88 and then establishing 20 years of precedent with it?

Come on.

Our insistence on doubling the DVD rate is about as credible as their insistence that we go to profit-based “residuals.” It’s nonsense posturing designed to create fake “wedges” for the only issue that matters—internet.

Everything else is crap, and I’m growing quickly tired of the ceaseless posturing on both sides.

One side better start talking in terms of recognizable reality here. I doubt it will be the companies. Maybe it should be us. Either way, wasting a precious negotiating day at this stage of the game on double DVD rates is the equivalent of shooting inserts instead of dialogue as the sun goes down.

Yes, what’s with all the posturing? It seems very “July” at this point. Could someone explain the upside to all this posturing?

This standoff is really getting old. It’s starting to feel like the strike has already begun.

I can’t deny it any longer. I’m officially freakin’ out. I need a pill, excuse me…

If DVDs, (which have helped keep the industry afloat for years) are a non-starter,(the .08 we’re asking for is less than the cost of a DVD box) and the studios don’t even wanna talk about residuals for present or future technology and are stifling entry into the WGA for reality writers, then which issue constitutes a starter?

Craig. History is always a great teacher, but you have to get the history right first. Yes, the 1988 strike was the longest in our history, but it had nothing to do with the home video (ie.— DVD) rate. 1985 was about the home video rate, and it was a two week strike that collapsed because there was a split over the interests of feature writers and TV writers.

DVD residuals and the rollbacks are on equal footing because they both ask the other party to go back in time and forget the war already fought.

We, as writers, lost the DVD war. We need to focus on what’s in front of us and stop trying to rectify the past.

This strike will be useless unless we start compromising on the above bullshit and start talking about what we really want - the internet.

I think the negotiating committee needs to show us some real balls and tone down the war talk. If AMPTP doesn’t follow our lead, then I’m all for a fight. But if the NC keeps on with this bullshit I think we should all VOTE NO and take the power out of their hands.

Sometimes people ignore when the engine light is on. They ignore it until the car stops moving.

I think the engine light has been on for months. It’s time to take the car to the shop or, dare I say it, buy a new one.

With the DGA prepping for talks come November all this posturing seems quite foolish. Foolish sucka.

If DVDs, (which have helped keep the industry afloat for years) are a non-starter,(the .08 we?re asking for is less than the cost of a DVD box) and the studios don?t even wanna talk about residuals for present or future technology and are stifling entry into the WGA for reality writers, then which issue constitutes a starter?

Posted by: chardkerm at October 10, 2007 11:17 AM

It’s more of a timing thing. In negotiations there is a fantasy, demand-the-moon phase (“I want $5 million for my house and not a penny less”) and a realistic, what-the-market-will-bear phase (“Okay, I’ll take $750,000 and do the repairs”). By passing up the chance for early talks in January, and only getting in seven days so far, we are still in the posturing phase, and so is management. At the end of the realistic phase, if we ever get there, management will HAVE to agree to some form of compensation on the internet, whether it’s the home video formula, the internet rental formula, or something in between. But they won’t do that with the current leadership, not for a long while, because management doesn’t think they can come to terms with this group. They don’t think they’re serious or interested in finding a middle ground. And so they are going to blitz right by us and strike a deal with the DGA that WILL address the internet. The way to get management to focus on an acceptable internet formula is NOT by leading with an issue from 20 years ago that has no chance of going anywhere, nor by chest-thumping to our members. We need to signal that we are sober businesspeople who understand the industry and want to make sure the talent gets what’s coming to them. As for dealing with reality writers, management agreed to do that in 2004 provided we approached it “professionally,” that is, show-by-show. The DGA did that and now has 100 reality shows with union directors. We insisted on going with industry-wide standards regardless of the show’s budget, and have not signed up one show. I’m afraid we shot ourselves in the foot on this one; the latest WGA Bulletin notwithstanding, we could have had lots of reality shows if we’d just used our heads. But ideology and posturing came before protecting reality writers. This is one time we really do need to blame ourselves and not management. Sorry if that’s strikes you as shill-like, but with so much at stake, maybe it’s time to speak in facts and not rhetoric.

the internet is real. i rode amtrak down to SD this weekend and there were no less than three people watching downloaded shows on ipods. no big revelation but this technology is changing everything in ways we can’t yet conceive. i believe anonymous #11 is hitting on all cylinders.

but my question is this, how do we give our union all the power we can at the negotiating table but still reserve the right to pull that choke-chain when they start barking at the wind?

Is it too late…?

I have dev deals in tv and film and i want whats coming to me, now and in the future. but i also have a pregnant fiance, a mortgage and not enough money to last 9months of a strike.

how do we focus our union on the most important and most realistic goals in these talks?

If we strike what’s the realistic estimate of how long it will last?

There is no way someone could say how long it will last - although I would be amazed if it lasted until June.

Considering that about five of the studios are officially not looking at any specs or pitches, I would say the strike has already begun though.

According to this article, the DGA might negotiate by the end of November, which if the deal is sound, we would be remiss not to follow.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/articledisplay.jsp?vnucontent_id=1003656060

If we strike what’s the realistic estimate of how long it will last?

Posted by: SML at October 10, 2007 2:24 PM

If you have to ask, you can’t afford it.

Anon,

You’re right. I can’t afford it. I might last until the new year, but I don’t have a paycheck coming in after the strike is finished.

…woe is me….

I’ll just go back to the coffee shop and start again.

But I fear for those with real monthly payments. I fear for my soon to be lack of fictional TV. I fear this strike is being driven by ego. I fear this is another small example of a few powerful men/women holding the lives of many in their hands.

But I’m a general-phobic, so I fear most things.