Your Vote Is Not Private

So apparently, the leadership really are morons, just like everyone’s been saying. Oh well.

I was quite shocked to see that the mailed votes were returning to 3rd and Fairfax. Honestly, how much would it cost to use an outside accounting firm to collect the ballots, verify membership, and count? Even if everything is on the up and up with this vote (and Craig’s personal experience puts this notion into some question), why risk even the appearance of impropriety with this crucial vote? You have to foresee that some members of the losing side of the vote are going to look for means to denounce the legitimacy of this vote. Why set up such an obvious platform for such accusations?

Guild management most definitely has a full plate before them, but, c’mon, this one should have been questioned by somebody.

I agree with you in principle. No one should know when or if anyone votes. The right not to vote is a right. That being said… put aside your protest for a day and vote anyway. Tomorrow you can spank the Guild for their lapse in protocol. This one’s for all the marbles.

I too was bothered by the address of “3rd & Fairfax” and also by the fact that the vote has already been touted as “unaminous” by someone within the WGA during an interview.

I didn’t notice the address prior to sending in my ballot.

But I voted, so I will presumably be going on the “Good and Loyal List” and have extra treats in my stocking come Christmas.

This is fucked. I’m not voting for shit.

All this extra-sneaky Scooby Doo shit is bullshit. Inconsistency and vagaries are weak. I was an absolute “yes” but, on GP, i gotta say: no one has convinced me of shit.

Honestly, this has gone from me feeling like striking made sense to “wow, I’m now generally infuriated.”

Fuck voting for a moving target.

FUCK

THAT

SHIT

I have to disagree Steve, you can’t have principles tomorrow, you have to have them now. Actually, I think you had to have had them about two weeks ago when it was becoming abundantly clear to many that the call to vote, the NegComm, and the leadership were and are not sticking to the spirit or letter of the laws governing the WGA.

But that’s me. I like the people who claim to represent the writers to believe in the WGA so much that they actually follow the rules and bylaws. And I think it is imperative that members hold the leaders to those rules.

Steve,

If you have issues with people reading ballots, why not abstain?

It still seems like a “no” vote sends the wrong message, whereas a non-vote says ‘fuck that shit.’

Craig —

“Secret ballot” means that how you voted will not be tracked.

By allowing voting to take place online, the Guild has to have a way to keep track of who voted. Otherwise, someone could submit both a mail ballot and an e-ballot, thus violating the Title I rights of all other members.

I agree with you that using the tracking to then remind members to vote is, well, creepy — but, let’s say that the e-mail had simply said, “If you haven’t voted yet, please remember to do so! Turnout counts!”

It’s still a creepy practice, but … not nearly so objectionable, huh?

And, it was an e-mail from a member. If it had been from someone on the staff, we’d be in dicey territory … but it wasn’t.

Yeah, yeah, I’m defending the Guild on this one. Shut up.

• Ted

Question: If you’ve already voted, and you now wish to change your vote…

…How do they invalidate the first to allow for the next?

Aren’t some sort of records kept somewhere by someone?

Not that anonymity should be compromised, but how is this supposed to work?

Cross post with Ted. Sorry.

I think there’s been a misunderstanding.

Look at your ballot envelope. You have two envelopes:

First, you have the external one. The one you sign. It has your name printed on the back. When this comes it, it’s marked as having come in.

But you might also notice a second, blank blue envelope. You’re supposed to put your ballot in that envelope and place it in the labeled envelope. This allows them to track who voted (something that we do, as a country, in our elections. You’ve seen that list at the polling station, the one you sign where they check you off? Same thing). But it also protects your anonymity.

It also makes it harder for anyone to vote twice.

This is the same process that was used for our recent elections.

If they didn’t track WHO voted, it’s be almost impossible to stop people from voting multiple times. Just send in your ballot, then show up at the big meeting and vote in person. Say you never received your ballot. Fill out a proxy statement.

You’re making this sound nefarious, but NOT doing it would allow for a huge amount of vote manipulation. For those who would like to see the guild not track “non-voters,” how do you propose that the guild prevent people from voting multiple times?

You’ll know your fears are substantiated when the “yes” vote comes in at 102%.

I don’t have a problem with them tracking who voted for the reasons listed above. I do have a problem with that information being shared with other members. Whether or not I vote is my business. Not my “contract” captain’s, not my boss’s, not my mother’s.

Ok, I’m not in the WGA, so my opinion means jack.

I have some sympathy for you here: you’re right:

Elections should be secret - and fairly and independently monitored and administered.

But that didn’t stop the votes in Florida from counting in the 2000 race when the Republican in charge of the election results in FL happened to be the very same person who was running Dubya’s Florida campaign.

That sort of thing stinks, and should stop.

But just because our voting system and those who run it are flawed doesn’t mean voting should.

And, I hate to tell you this, because it won’t endear me to you, but I’m going to anyway:

You’ve served on the WGA board, right?

You attempt to influence the election, right?

Sounds like the actions of a politician to me.

You’re not running now, but still: you’re in the spotlight, and you asked for it.

Politicians are expected to fill out their ballot publicly - it’s something of a tradition.

You’re rightfully PO’d now, but you’re probably also feeling sensitive from all the flack you’ve been taking from all sides lately. Take some time to cool off, and think about what’s best for you.

And I hope that’s your deciding to vote.

Wow. Mr. Mazin, I gotta say that I respect a dude that really digs into principles. That’s nice to see.

Wow. A very valid concern, indeed. I, like Ted, instantly thought of the online/fax/mail voting of it all and wondered how they avoided double votes. But, with that said, it’s still something that should be addressed. And, yes, it’s creepy. But, I hope you change your mind and vote anyway.

I so appreciate your voice in all things union and can’t help but feel by abstaining, you would be silencing that voice. My knee-jerk two cents.

I agree with Kristen Reidel’s point about information being shared with other members. That’s the main objection from me. If someone chooses not to vote and has their reasons… they shouldn’t be castigated for it.

Here’s another thing seriously wrong with treating an SAV differently from a guild candidate election, even though it is technically legal to do so. The strike authorization ballots went out under a certain set of circumstances: management had an unpallatible, undigestable residuals proposal on the table. Forget for a moment that in the past we were asked to authorize a strike much closer to the expiration of a contract, not after a handful of days of negotiating during the chest-thumping phase. In the informational meetings, in chatrooms, in conversations among writers a “yes” vote was sold to us because of management’s residuals proposal, or at least that was a big reason usually cited up front. Two days ago management takes that proposal off the table. Some people start rethinking their SAV, saying “Whoa. Maybe I want to see some more serious bargaining before I give the leadership the right to order a strike.” With an independent company administering and counting the votes, the member could call the Guild office — just as he/she can do during a Board election — and get a new ballot, fill it out, and have the old one discarded. In theory you could still do that now, but given the strike rules and past history, who in their right mind would make that call? “Why do you want a new ballot?” asks the staffer. “I want to change my vote on the strike authorization…” I think even a non-writer can fill in the rest of that dialogue.

But don’t you sign the envelope you send in? I’m pretty sure we do. So it has to be traced somehow. Otherwise, one could vote multiple times, etc. And don’t be SO CONVINCED they know HOW you voted, just whether you did.

We have that in our general elections, why not here. I don’t see the big issue.

Even though I support your potential ire, your reaction to abstain is a bigger punishment to your broader, loyal, INNOCENT FELLOW MEMBERS and we are all in this together. Remember, Union guy, how this really works for the rank and file?

You’re pissed off at leadership (justified), so you piss on your fellow writers? I hope you rethink this position. You’re immediate reaction seems a emotionally overloaded. But cool your jets and get well.

WGA Writer at #20: They don’t keep track by the signature, they keep track by the ballot number. I helped out with the tellers committee once on an incredibly boring and thankless task. If you ask for a new ballot in, say, a Board election, they give you one and then they put the number of your old ballot on a list. When they go to count the ballots, they first sort all the envelopes by number and look to see if one of the verboten numbers is among the pile. If it is, they put it aside and don’t count it. At that point they open the outer and then the inner envelopes and begin counting.
Doing it by number, and with an independent company rather than the staff keeping track, helps preserve the sense of a secret ballot.

Well, I’m actually bactracking from my defense of the Guild here.

Although keeping track of ballots is legal (there are some unions where voting is mandatory, subject to fines; they have to be able to track ballots), and I think we need to presume that the Guild will honor the “secret” part of the secret ballot …

… there is a problem with a union sharing information about its members with anyone, even other members.

Without putting too fine a point on it: Voting? Legal process.

Just like credit arbitrations.

If the Guild’s going to be telling “strike captains” who has and has not voted, then I think the Guild should start telling participating writers who is and is not arbitrating their credit disputes.

Also, you know, who has received Good & Welfare loans is already public information. Surely members won’t care if the Guild starts telling other members who has received those loans, so we can make sure they’ve paid them back in a timely fashion. Right?

Oh, another one:

A public listing of all members of both East and West, that gives their membership status, dues status (active or in arrears), along with record of either the employment they’ve achieved to receive that status, or the waiver of the employment requirements.

• Ted

Dear Craig,

I think your upset is unfounded. Then again, I’ve been proposing MANDATORY VOTING in the WGAw for several years. (Yes, dear readers, fling your “that’s un-American!” shit my way. I’ll give you a list of countries, like Australia, where voting is mandatory and not voting is punishable by a monetary fine. Hell, voting is mandatory in the DGA.)

I am a dreaded, black-shirted Contract Captain and have made these exact calls to people in my group. Nobody has said, “How dare you know whether or not I’ve voted!” To a person it’s been, “Shit! Thanks for the reminder, is it too late to vote? How do I do it? Can you help me?”

If someone I called said, “Fuck off, it’s none of your business if I vote or not” I would respectfully disagree and would ask, “Wouldn’t you like to know if you had voted that the Guild hadn’t received your ballot?” (See, Kristen, it is someone’s business, though maybe not your Mom’s.) I’m no different from the guy outside Trader Joe’s asking if you’re registered to vote in an upcoming election. Do you get this upset, Craig, when that happens?

I hope Ted’s set many straight here reminding everyone of how the ballots work. And I doubt ANY Contract Captain is coercive in their question to members whose ballots haven’t been received.

Best,

Clifford

Furthermore, the assumption that keeping track if who did/ didn’t vote is THE SAME as knowing HOW they vote is, frankly, a retarted leap of logic.

The blog entry & title is way more paranoid than your facts actually back up.

Mr. Mazin:

I’ve enjoyed your site for a few months now. Thank you for your posts. I’m a new WGA member who has volunteered to be one the captains that you seem to disdain. You may think I’m naive, but what’s wrong with the Guild wanting as many members to vote as possible? With all due respect, no one is forcing you to vote a certain way or forcing you to vote period. It could be that the NegCom just wants the SAV to be representative of as many members as possible. I, too, received a list of people to call whose votes hadn’t been received yet. Both people I called thanked me for the reminder. One wanted to know how to get a proxy vote; the other didn’t realize the deadline was so soon, and he was glad of the extra notice. I don’t know how the people on my list voted, nor do I care. It’s not my business.

Finally, I think you are mistaken about about the availability of an online proxy vote. The proxy authorization form can be downloaded online, but it must be faxed to the Guild offices by noon today (which is already past), and you must designate a member to vote in your place in person at tonight’s Special Meeting. You cannot just vote online. At least, those were the conditions that were explained to the captains. I don’t whether you have other contacts who can facilitate your vote differently. (Also, anyone who hasn’t voted yet can still vote in person tonight at the Meeting.)

Thanks again for creating this space for discussion and learning. I’m not signing my name, because frankly, I don’t want to get skewered.

Clifford, if you can’t see the difference between the guy at Trader Joe’s asking me if I’m registered to vote, a question that I can refuse to answer, and a fellow Guild member knowing whether or not I have voted, I don’t know what to tell you.

No, Kristen, but anybody can go down to your precinct on election day, and find out whether you voted or not. They can’t find out HOW you voted, but it’s public knowledge WHETHER you voted. That seems equivalent.

As someone else said, this vote has already been called “unaminous.” Clifford, explain why when I explored voting by fax a few days ago I was given the name of a guild member who would gladly accept all “yes” votes, I was instructed to write in their name, but told there’s no one to accept a “no” vote. What’s the fairness in that?

“I’m no different from the guy outside Trader Joe’s asking if you’re registered to vote in an upcoming election.”

But the guy outside Trader Joe’s has to ask me before he knows the answer. This would be more like the Elections Clerk telling the Republican Party operative who has and hasn’t voted and telling that operative to give them a call and pressure them into voting. Or even the elections clerk telling your neighbors that you hadn’t voted yet.

Plus, it does open up the potential for abuse. Strike Captain finds out member isn’t voting, calls member - member says he’s not voting. Strike captain tells leader that member isn’t voting. Leader can now vote for that person without fear of a double vote. Now, I don’t think that’s happening or going to happen, but the possibility exists.

Or even just the concern that the people who don’t vote are put on a list and are subject to some sort of shunning or whatever. (Again, I don’t think that’s going to happen).

Until voting is mandatory, I don’t think it’s the business of other members, strike captains or no, whether I vote or not unless I want to make it public.

But that’s just what I think.

“Wouldn’t you like to know if you had voted that the Guild hadn’t received your ballot?”

Clifford brings up a good point. Or one I was concerned with, anyway. I never received my ballot in the first place. All my writer friends had. I called and they sent me a new ballot. I filled it out and sent it back, thinking, “I hope they get it.” “How will I know?” The number of times the postal service has failed me is too numerous to count. I’m neurotic that way. I kinda like the fact they have a way of knowing. As long as they don’t know HOW I VOTE. Which it seems they don’t.

Dear Kristen,

The fellow Guild member doesn’t know whether or not you’ve voted. All they know is that your ballot was never received. That’s how I’ve posed the question to the people I’ve called: “The Guild has informed me that your ballot hasn’t shown up. I just want to let you know what the other methods are for voting if you haven’t sent it in.” All you have to say if your Contract Captain calls is, “Thanks for the heads up.”

I would never assume you haven’t voted since, #1, I vote in every election and project my values on the rest of the world and #2, I’m still waiting for a package that was sent “Overnight” last week from NY via Express Mail.

Best,

C…

My third and final cent on this. Not to flip flop, but I do see everyone’s POV on this and not sure of the solution. But, it could begin with an outside source tallying the votes…???

If this were a national or city election, the person who noticed that Craig hadn’t voted yet would offer him a ride to the polls, baby-sitting, or maybe some cash or booze, depending on what party he was registered in.

What we’ve got in the Guild seems to be ward politics, which cuts across the cultural norms established in our union. It is nobody’s damned businees who has and hasn’t voted. That information should not be shared with other members, even if it legally can be.

So come to the meeting tonight, vote, and raise some hell from the floor.

when I explored voting by fax a few days ago I was given the name of a guild member who would gladly accept all “yes” votes, I was instructed to write in their name, but told there’s no one to accept a “no” vote.

Wow.

“No, Kristen, but anybody can go down to your precinct on election day, and find out whether you voted or not. They can’t find out HOW you voted, but it’s public knowledge WHETHER you voted. That seems equivalent.”

They can’t where I live. Such lists are not public here until after the election is over.

I’ve written an addendum to the main post, which will hopefully clear up any misunderstandings about my position on this matter.

Dear Matteo,

Do you remember with whom you spoke? Because that’s utter bullshit. I have asked everyone who’s sending in a proxy how they would like me to vote for them. BTW, all have been “Yea.” But if they were all “Nay” that’s how I’d vote them.

Being a Proxy isn’t carte blanch to co-opt those votes, it’s a responsibility to the person who can’t make it otherwise.

You can email me privately if you’d like.

Best,

C… P.S. I don’t know about the “someone” in the know who already said the vote was “unanimous” but that’s just plain wrong since the votes won’t be counted until after tonight’s meeting. (Though my gut tells me it’ll be damn close.)

Just for those of us who are following this from the sidelines…

What happens if the strike authorization vote results in a NO ?

Does it mean the members grabbed the last stick the wga was brandishing in the face of the AMPTP right from their sweaty, whiteknuckled hands?

Or can a strike still be called?

If a strike authorization vote fails, a strike can not be called. It’s just that simple.

If a strike authorization vote fails, there may be another strike authorization vote later.

FWIW, I got a phone call yesterday from the Guild about not receiving my ballot. What rubbed me the wrong way is that the number came up UNKNOWN CALLER. I’m pretty sure that when I’ve gotten calls from WGA before there has always been a number as well as the Writer’s Guild name. I thought it was weird at the time, but didn’t read much into it until this post.

Making headlines:

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/

I just looked at the quote and the statement made was the vote was expected to be “almost unanimous.”

I didn’t have a person to proxy for me as I’ve been on the road and was told that if I sent it in by fax, then I could write in the name of a designated guild representative for a “yes” vote, but that there was no one designated for a “no” vote. That’s the fax.

Craig, I agree with most of what you write on this blog. But that addendum reeks of “Whoops, I totally overreacted better save face.” Now this is going to get blown up into a bigger issue from a game of telephone. I think a retraction and admission that you overreacted would have been more positive.

I think the consensus is forming around the fact that had an outside firm counted the votes, and had an outside firm auto-called all those on the list of members not yet voted for a friendly reminder to vote, almost nobody would have a problem.

However, the moment objective vote counters passed on individual voter information to partisan Guild officials, the situation becomes ripe for accusations of corruption.

Craig, what are you complaining about? At least you hear from your strike captain. Me? My stike captain never writes, never calls, not a peep about a SAV. Hell, if it weren’t for AW, I wouldn’t even know my strike captain even exists.

Seriously, am I supposed to be hearing from one? ‘Cause I haven’t.

Is it any wonder that when electoral misconduct is ignored at the Federal level, that the practice is going to filter down to other levels of democracy?

Craig, Chill, man! I just finished apologizing to you on the last thread because you misunderstood my post and I thought I wasn’t being clear. Now, you’ve gone and freaked out on me! T

his thing isn’t some huge conspiracy. No one has the time for that. At the worst, it’s just sloppiness. So what, if they want a big voter turnout! As long as they don’t know how each member voted, I’m fine with that.

Now take care of your kids and get well yourself and take a nap between set-ups instead of answering me. I’m the same guy who’s worried about directors crossing moral picket lines during the strike, so you’ve attacked me enough.

And I have to say this, I admire the fact that you are able to keep this blog going and write and direct a film and have a family life. It takes all the energy out of me to wrap up my paying gigs, have a family life and post here periodically!

I think you’re being almost as paranoid as Craig.

A lot of the calls coming out on this issue have been being made by captains - volunteers, calling from their home, work, or cell phones. Some of those people probably have caller ID blocking on.

Some of the calls coming from the guild have been se up in specially-organized phone banks - again, not the guild’s normal phone system. So, again, there’s no reason to assume anything nefarious here.

It’s not some conspiracy to hide who’s calling you.

Erp - didn’t mean to sockpuppet. #47 is from me, I was responding to Ben. Sorry about that.

I also wanted to say that the whole attitude that voting against the SAV makes you “disloyal” and puts you on the enemies list strikes me as sort of silly, and, well, parnoid.

The reason why elections are done by a third party is because the people running the guild are on the ballot.

Nobody’s on the ballot for this one. You’re not voting “for” or “against” the incumbents. Yes, we know how they want you to vote, but they hardly have the same sort of incentive to cheat that you would see in a BoD/Presidential election.

Surprisingly enough, I’m not foaming at the mouth over this one since, with online voting, at least, I assumed they’d be tracking who had and had not voted (which, of course, begs the question of whether the convenience of online voting is worth the costs).

My big issue, of course, is with the decision to call for an SAV in the first place. Yep, I still think it was a bad idea.

Anonymous #1 wrote: “In the informational meetings, in chatrooms, in conversations among writers a “yes” vote was sold to us because of management’s residuals proposal, or at least that was a big reason usually cited up front. Two days ago management takes that proposal off the table. Some people start rethinking their SAV, saying “Whoa. Maybe I want to see some more serious bargaining before I give the leadership the right to order a strike.”

Well, hell’s bells, Margaret, I think I argued for some more serious bargaining last week, and boy did that go over well. Yeah, yeah, you can say it wouldn’t have happened if the SAV hadn’t been called, but with only ten days spent at the negotiating table, who can really say?

What troubles me about the call for the SAV is that I don’t know what would actually trigger the strike that we’re about to authorize. When it comes to defining what the “strike to the death” issues are there’s a lot of ways to skin that cat. Our leadership asked us to trust that they’d skin it wisely, but how do I know that I agree with their definition of wise unless they give me some inkling what it is?

To put it another way, how can you vote “yes” without knowing what yes will mean in real terms. And yet, once the SAV was called, how could you vote other than “yes” lest your no vote signal to the AMPTP that writers aren’t serious about achieving real gains?

Hell, what do I know, maybe the leaderships strategies worked. If nothing else, it worked on us.

Strike captains are given lists of members to contact and talk about the vote. I think it’s safe to say that during those conversations, they’ll get a feel for which way a member is thinking of voting.

Then those same people are sent a list of names of who has and hasn’t voted.

Isn’t it obvious that people who volunteered to be strike captains shouldn’t also be given the power and responsibility of getting out the vote of the people whose beliefs they know?

If our case is so righteous that we’re convinced it will pass on the merits, why on earth would such an obvious opportunity to game the system be instituted?

Sorry, but I think this is much ado about nothing. As a captain, I got a list as well and followed up with those whose ballots hadn’t been received. One didn’t realize the deadline was upon us, a couple others were planning to go to the meeting tonight, and one or two had lost their proxy ballot. These are just your fellow members, giving of their time, trying to help get out the vote, not secret police out to microchip your elbow.

And fyi, whenever I get a call from the guild i.d. says “out of area”.

It seems no different to me than your chosen party calling you before election day to remind you to vote, or giving you a little button that says “I voted” when you do.

No, kat, it would be like a Republican being put in charge of reminding Democrats and Republicans to vote.

(Flip the parties if you’d like.)

Would that be all right with you?

Yeah, he’s been too busy working as a successful manager. A job, BTW, he can continue to do when the writers are out of work.

But nice jab. Come up with a few more when you’re on strike.

When I first moved to L.A., I made the mistake of letting one of those clipboard folks register me to vote. Even though they were stumping for a particular party, they assured me they could register me with the party of my choice. Imagine my surprise when I went to the polls that November and found they had added me to their own rolls instead. Hey, I was a naive country bumpkin back then. Still, pretty shoddy behavior.

On topic, I’m not in the guild yet, but it seems to me they should have anticipated the objection Craig is making, if only to minimize potential divisiveness in the ranks as this important vote approaches.

“No, kat, it would be like a Republican being put in charge of reminding Democrats and Republicans to vote.

(Flip the parties if you�d like.)

Would that be all right with you?”

I’ll second the above — but add that they also get privileged knowledge of who does and doesn’t vote.


What’s distressing is seeing so many (I presume) Americans who seem to have no problem with this.

Really? We need to be galvanized to fight the amtpt on digital and we’re going to dissolve into paranoid infighting over this? Really? How effective.

Not to be screenwriter wonk, but this is so off the spine.

To Poster #25,

There’s nothing wrong with the WGA wanting as many members to vote as possible. BUT, in this case they were well aware that CM was voting YES.

Could it be there’s a movement at foot to punch up the YES vote as much as possible?

Ask yourself this…. If Craig was as vocal about voting NO, would he have gotten a call at all?

Not voting is as valid a statement as voting. You have the right to vote yay or nay anonymously, you also the right to not vote at all just as anonymously. It ain’t right, plain and simple.

I do, however, find it ironic… No. Scratch that. Not ironic. Fucking hilarious when someone who’s poo poo’d allegations of election fraud during the last two presidential elections gets so up in arms about this.

On the other hand, the consequence of those elections were only the deaths of thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Iraquis, and the destruction of an American city. This time, the consequences are residuals on fucking MOVIES, people! THIS time it fucking MATTERS!!!!

this is the type of stuff that scum gossip hag Finke lives for.

sigh,

lt

If I may, I would submit that not voting by not sending in a ballot is different from not voting by sending in a blank ballot (or an intentionally spoiled ballot, i.e. one that is marked both “yes” and “no”).

The latter would seem to me to be a more effective means of protest, and would avoid future “reminders” to send in your ballot.

Man oh man… the AMPTP must be laughing their asses off over all of this. They’re fluffing their dicks to give the WGA a good ol’ fashioned lubeless cornholin’ and we’re freaking out over the fact that the union is keeping track of who did and didn’t send in their ballots.

Fucking priceless.

Chuckles,

Mastercard shill!!!

Does anyone know who is actually tallying the votes, the process, and what sort of oversight is involved? Transparency in this sort of thing can really help.

Why, oh, why, Craig? This one wasn’t constructive.

J.O.:

Great to see you posting on WA again! I guess this means that Alex is gone, since you swore you’d never go back while she was an admin. And you’re a man of integrity, your word is your bond, etc, etc.

Everyone should get off Craig’s back on this one. I don’t always agree with what he says but it’s HIS WEBSITE and he has the right to use it to voice his anger when something pisses him off.

The allegations that he’s raising this at a bad time are silly. Someone wrote that the AMPTP are laughing their asses off over this. ReallY? Don’t you think they’ve got bigger things on their mind? Like how lame they look for having bungled the timing of their proposal withdrawal. Think what you want of Ms. Finke but she says the studio heads are already divided. I bet they’ve already had discussions about whether to replace Nick Counter — clearly a majority has lost faith in him or that proposal would not have been yanked in that embarrassing fashion.

So Craig, thanks for the forum, and while the calls by the captains were unacceptable and invasive, I haven’t found an institution yet that’s pefect so expect more annoyances to come.

Hmm. Not voting seems like a case of winning a battle only to risk losing the war. And do people really give a toss whether anyone knows how they voted? If you believe in the box you check, whether it be yes or no, then who gives a rat’s ass who knows?

Sorry. Can’t get upset over it. So they’re tracking who votes and who doesn’t. Presumably, they’re trying to make sure everyone gets one and only one vote. They’re not emailing you, saying things like “why’d you vote no, you disloyal bastard?”

We have members taking polls online, asking people to reveal how they voted. And they’re not anonymous polls. We have members asking people at the Guild how they voted. And none of that is being supported by the WGA leadership. It’s just members being nosy.

Sorry, but members pestering other members about how they voted bugs me more than the Guild asking members to vote.

I have had plenty of issues with the WGA over the years and I certainly feel that the policy of sharing who did and didn’t vote with other members should get a good long look after the smoke clears. How about just calling every member to make sure he/she got a vote in?

However, the idea of punishing the Guild leadership by not voting at this crucial moment seems to me a little like drinking the poison so I can watch you die.

It’s perfectly reasonable to disagree with having called for the SAV at this juncture but once the vote has been called, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by having it fail. Maybe I’m missing something, here, but I can’t see how a failed SAV will accomplish anything short of totally eviscerating the bargaining power of the Guild, which will in turn hurt the interests of every individual member.

Does anyone actually believe that a “no strike” result will cause the companies to say something like “There, there, now that we see you’re a reasonable lot we’d like to reward you with a nice fat contract and never mind all that separation of rights and residuals counting against overscale payments?”

clearly we should have asked the DGA for a few ADs and had them make the calls. try to do it ourselves and this is what happens…

Look, if the overall vote tally for the SAV is, say, n…I really don’t think we’re going to suffer if the vote tally is n-1 instead.

That stated, I accept that my opinion on this matter isn’t one of my more popular ones.

Don’t care, natch.

I think this is a dangerous precedent for union democracy.

Huh…

…just checked my emails.

Maybe more popular than I thought.

hell, writers have a long, colorful tradition of principled self destruction, so who could really hold it against you?

Colin Goldman Wrote: “I think the consensus is forming around the fact that had an outside firm counted the votes, and had an outside firm auto-called all those on the list of members not yet voted for a friendly reminder to vote, almost nobody would have a problem.”

Dear Colin,

Man, do I know you’re wrong. I believe the same folks upset over this would have been MORE upset if an extra-Guild body had possession of their contact information. That actually is against Guild policy. I think these same folks would be clamoring for someone’s head expecting the firm would sell their info to Herbalife if not give the voting results to the AMPTP.

Truth is, the Guild just can’t win w/ some people.

Best,

C…

I’d just like to set the record straight about Trader Joe’s. I have no problem with the solicitors there asking about my voting, and I’m quite sure most everyone will agree. It’s the guys at Ralph’s that you have to watch out for. By the way, did you know those people are paid just to do that?

Nephilim (#58):

You’re right. CM is a high-profile member who has the influence (via this site) to lead others to water and who had publicly espoused “yes” earlier. But there are several people on WA who express mistrust of the leadership and who had stated they would vote “no.” I bet they received calls from captains too, if their ballots weren’t received yet. At the captains’ orientation by the way, we weren’t instructed to persuade people into voting one way or another. I’m sorry for the experiences of anyone who was pressured into voting a certain way (like Matteo, #28, was). That is wrong. I like the idea of mandatory voting, especially if “abstain” were a choice on the ballot.

Thank you, Craig, for your continuing efforts to put all these complicated issues into terms I can understand. I’ve learned more about this guild I belong to from your posts than from all of the e-mails they’ve ever sent me. I know it’s one man’s opinion but it’s one that has put a spotlight on things I was previously content to keep in darkness. Much love.

I want to be a “CONTRACT CAPTAIN”.

Whose union do I have to fuck up to be considered for the position?

Nick Counter speaks in the LA Times today:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-counter19oct19,0,68009.story?coll=la-opinion-center

CLifford J Green (#23, and others)-

Reminding people to vote can be done without disseminating voter information like this to other members of the Guild - just mandate that the “captains” call and remind periodically, for example.

I’m not sure “No-one’s really yelled back at me for it yet” is a valid ethical defense, incidentally.

From Counter: “The Internet is not just another distribution medium like the VCR or DVD before it.”

And how did that work out for us? Same bullshit, different decade. If we fall for this crap again, we deserve what we (don’t) get.

From Counter: “The Internet is not just another distribution medium like the VCR or DVD before it.”

And how did that work out for us? Same bullshit, different decade. If we fall for this crap again, we deserve what we (don’t) get.

Yeah! And that goes double!

Forgot to insert name and e-mail on first one. Apologies. Carry on.

Craig,

“…just checked my emails.

Maybe more popular than I thought.”

Christ.

As dreary internet tactics go, “I get e mails from people who agree with me” is one of the dreariest.

For once, I’m not arguing with your comments - I mostly agree with your outrage (Althoug I remain amused by your selective, pocket-book driven concern for the democratic process), but you’re undercutting your point by claiming to support only you can see.

This, too:

“That stated, I accept that my opinion on this matter isn’t one of my more popular ones.

Don’t care, natch.”

Jesus. What an edgy maverick you are.

This is a pretty hysterical over-reaction. As you know, we put our names on the outside of our ballot envelopes and the Guild is checking off which members have returned their ballots. (Ever voted in a presidential election? They check your name off there too.) Okay, maybe they shouldn’t be doing this, but this doesn’t mean they are opening the ballots and noting HOW you voted and making up a lists of enemies and friendlies.

And not voting is no way to make a “statement.” To think of all those uncounted “statements” in 2000…

Over-reacting. I’ve been on vote counting committees for the PTA and the WGA. Of course they have to track who votes. And that envelope had better be signed properly or it’s not counted. And the votes are counted and checked by your fellow members who volunteered. The ballots, once removed from the addressed return envelope are completely Anonymous.

Although board elections are just as important (or should be) as a strike vote, I can see where a “get out the vote” drive would be more intense. Especially if the name of a FORMER BOARD MEMBER comes up on the “hasn’t voted” list. Good example to set. Blog about the election then forget to vote. Real good example to set. Especially after you announced your secret vote on a public blog. Yeah, that makes sense.

Zencat

“And not voting is no way to make a “statement.” To think of all those uncounted “statements” in 2000…”

To YOU it’s not a statement. However, you only get to make that distinction for yourself. I know plenty of people who didn’t vote in the last election as a statement, and I thought it was made fairly clear - the majority of Americans were disgusted with the choices they were offered.

I also spoke to someone a few weeks ago who’s specifically NOT voting in this matter for very specific reasons, and while I don’t agree with him at all, I vigorously agree with his right to do so, and to do so anonymously if he chooses.

Dan,

There’s a difference between what you’re talking about and what Craig’s talking about. Yes, having names on the envelopes insures a fair process. That doesn’t mean, however, that that information can or should be passed on to other members, or used in any way except its primary purpose.

“I can see where a “get out the vote” drive would be more intense. Especially if the name of a FORMER BOARD MEMBER comes up on the “hasn’t voted” list. Good example to set. Blog about the election then forget to vote. Real good example to set. Especially after you announced your secret vote on a public blog. Yeah, that makes sense.”

As annoying or stupid as Craig’s actions might seem to you, they’re his to make. If Craig vigorously supported the strike here, but secretly voted no, that would also be his right, and if you had somehow come by knowledge he had done this, it would NOT be your right to reveal.

It’s a simple principal at work here, one central and essential to our process. It’s kinda shocking to me how many people don’t get it (or, in Craig’s case, only selectively apply it).

I found Nick Counter’s LA Times piece to “doth protest too much.”

As far as the internet not being considered legitimate distribution, why is Fox Home Video for the first itme including a downloadable version of “Live Free Or Die Hard” along with the DVD in their upcoming two disc set?

Most savvy individuals already know how to rip a copy for mobile playback, so I thought perhaps it’s a way to siphon off business from legitimate download sites that will be offering the film via deals already in place with the studio.

“As long as she has her claws in the place, it�s always going to be tainted, and it ain�t never gonna live up to its potential. I still get e mails every few months from various members and administrators asking me to come back, and my answer�s the same - I�ll be back five minutes after Alex Sokoloff steps down.”

Also, if the “Internet is not just another distribution medium like the VCR or DVD before it,” then why are some older movies and TV shows, titles that aren’t available on either disc or tape, being offered exclusively on legitimate download sites?

It’s because older titles don’t have awareness and can’t compete with new product on store shelves. For the studios, it makes more economic sense to save on production and marketing costs and license these titles to download sites. Those sites get to advertise these titles as “exclusives” and “not available on DVD.”

If that’s not distribution, then what is it?

Alan,

I don’t think Counter is arguing that internet is a lesser platform, I think he’s saying we don’t know its potential yet.

If anything I felt his op-ed piece could be used against him in negotiations. I got the impression that Internet is highly important and Counter/the AMPTP expect big things. It just hasn’t come to fruit yet. This should motivate us to push hard for our 2.5% now. Once internet does fruit, the AMPTP will fight harder to keep us down.

I don’t really have a dog in this fight but DLW (#74) made me nod my head in agreement

“hell, writers have a long, colorful tradition of principled self destruction…”

Craig, as I am someone who frequently cuts her nose off to spite her face on principle and also as someone her values her privacy to the nth degree, I appreciate your annoyance but, in this case, the SA vote itself seems to be of far greater importance. I would cast my vote THEN clean house.

side note: Josh (and others), if you want to know what really went down in 2000, read here (from “Research in Review” published by Florida State University) - it is a real eye-opener: http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/winter2005/features/battlefield.html

While it’s true that IF voting was mandatory, then keeping track of who votes and who doesn’t would be acceptable, the fact of the matter is that voting is NOT mandatory, so whether or not you voted is not the Guild’s business. And to make matters worse is that it’s not an independent group that is handling the ballots, but the guild itself. These facts should most definitely concern anyone who cares about the legitimacy of any voting. Is there going to be any impropriety? Probably not. Do these practices open up the possibility that there could be? Absolutely.

When dealing with elections and voting, the mere appearance of impropriety is the worst thing that could happen. Why not be smart and take away that possibility?

It’s interesting because everyone complained that we missed the boat on DVDs when they were a booming business. Then, as our contract nears expiration, that market is decreed as “flattened.”

I would expect that if we agreed to “study” the internet, it would fully bloom until the moment our contracts ran out.

Dear Mr. Counter:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Interested in what some of our “brothers” from TAG think of WGA writers…? http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/around-studios.html

I have heard that the AMPTP is paying writers to post on the Artful Writer. Maybe this isn’t true but SML seems like maybe he could be such a shill.

Oh for God’s sake.

Guess,

If you have something you’d like to discuss with me, feel free to e mail me under your actual name. However, if you’re content to snipe from the shadows like a coward, I’ll be content to ignore you.

Well, SML did seem to defend Mr. Counter’s POV.

I think if someone has never had something produced or gotten a residual check, they might have a more tempered appraisal of the man’s comments.

I think Mr. Counter’s first name should be Bean.

I’ve already gotten a firm offer to rewrite message 100.

Alan,

I’ve said this in posts past, but I’ll repeat myself because I can…

The profitability of internet is a non-issue in this negotiation. We can say it’s profitable all we want and Counter can say it’s a big black hole. In the end, It don’t fuckin’ matter.

2.5% of 100%. Those are the only numbers we should be talkin’ about. Whether or not internet is profitable is a questioned better answered/fought over once we’re assured a cut.

What a douchebag.

This reminds me of THE PUNISHER where John Travolta jumps to conclusions and thinks his wife is fucking Will Patton so he has her violently killed. Then he finds out Will’s actually gay and so of course his wife never fucked him.

All together now. Oops!

Guess (92),

You’re an idiot.

SML, studio creative accounting will never show profitability.

Why do you think the Guild is trying to ascertain what the revenue is from product placement on TV shows when they’re replayed on the internet?

I agree, if we do get a “cut” and no matter what that cut winds up being — it won’t be the truth of what we should be making. That’s life.

And what conclusively defines the one hundred percent you’re talking about? All replays? All individual downloads rolled into one? I suppose that plays into what Counter is talking about.

I know the studios are worried that they won’t be able to promote movies on the internet if the Guild starts pressuring to be compensated for the use of film clips like what’s done on TV.

Alan,

It’s a serious issue, no doubt. But it’s a legal one (re: New Line/Jackson). We have no “legal” foothold when it comes to internet… not until we negotiate/strike for 2.5%. Right?

2.5 first. “Of what” after… and if we have a problem with creative accounting then we take their asses to court.

Craig, Can you climb down off of your cross for ten minutes instead of looking for something, anything, to complain about?
There’s a system in place to enforce the One Writer, One Vote system. The Guild used the system to encourage, and get, the highest voter turnout in history. Patrick Verrone is not hiding under your bed, David Young is not sifting through your recycling bin. To borrow your style… GET. OVER. IT.

SML, it’s important to have as much information as possible about the revenue being generated when you’re asking for your “cut,” lest the producers will resist negotiating… as they’ve been doing. The faux residuals threat was based on their claim they’re not recouping on their investments and that’s all about their definition of profits. That’s what I’m talking about.

Alan,

I think I see what you’re saying… I’m all for defining potential revenue streams (actually I think we need to so we can take 2.5% from them), but arguing profitability seems to be off the mark. Unless I’m missing something…

As Ted pointed out:

“The way the MBA works, it defines “primary markets” —

(the market for which the motion picture is produced; a motion picture produced for theatrical exhibition, the primary market is theatrical exhibition (including in-flight movies); a motion picture produced for television exhibition — like an episode of Heroes — the primary market is network broadcast; etc)

— and “supplementary markets”

(all other markets in which the motion picture is used other than the primary market).

Residuals are calculated as a percentage of revenue generated by the licensing of the work for use in supplementary markets (with one exception).

So, in regards to internet exhibition, we’re asking for a percentage of the revenue for the (re-)use of the work in that supplementary market.”

So there…

I believe the point was, as I understand it, unless you can prove profitability or at least the potential of it, then the producers will resist giving us anything at all.

The Guild has a firm stance that if the other side gets paid then we should get paid, but if the producers are pleading poverty or using a bevy of other arguments — it makes it harder to justify getting any percentage at all right now with this new contract. The producers would rather wait and study the situation.

One thing is for sure. I’d rather be paranoid about the producers than my own Guild.

I am a freelance story analyst with a mortgage to pay and a pregnant wife - one of the many people in this town whose lives will be devastated if the two sides don’t reach an agreement. I have appreciated this site for the information it provides and the healthy debate it has sparked.

But seriously, Craig: fuck you.

You yourself has said that a “no” vote on strike authorization undermines the Guild’s power to make a deal - and every vote counts. So spare us the lecture on what you consider “immoral and wrong.”

You’re a guy who earns seven figures a project and can withstand a strike of any length - and who wields a certain amount of influence on the Guild members who read this blog.

Maybe it’s a foregone conclusion, but the WGA needs this authorization for its bargaining position.

So, yes: I think you’re overreacting and you’re being over-dramatic about a relatively minor issue.

Sorry for the vitriol, but I’ve stood on the sidelines and (silently) supported you against those calling you a WGA shill. And now I am pissed.

You have a right to your opinion, of course - but you also have to pick your battles.

I am a freelance story analyst with a mortgage to pay and a pregnant wife - one of the many people in this town whose lives will be devastated if the two sides don’t reach an agreement. I have appreciated this site for the information it provides and the healthy debate it has sparked.

But seriously, Craig: fuck you.

You yourself has said that a “no” vote on strike authorization undermines the Guild’s power to make a deal - and every vote counts. So spare us the lecture on what you consider “immoral and wrong.”

You’re a guy who earns seven figures a project and can withstand a strike of any length - and who wields a certain amount of influence on the Guild members who read this blog.

Maybe it’s a foregone conclusion, but the WGA needs this authorization for its bargaining position.

So, yes: I think you’re overreacting and you’re being over-dramatic about a relatively minor issue.

Sorry for the vitriol, but I’ve stood on the sidelines and (silently) supported you against those calling you a WGA shill. And now I am pissed.

You have a right to your opinion, of course - but you also have to pick your battles.

Oops…I meant an AMPTP shill.

A Reader:

“Fuck you”? Really? On a blog for writers?

I didn’t vote “no.” Early reports suggest that something like half of the WGA members voted. So I’m one of, um, 5,000 or so members who just didn’t vote. Oh God. My 1/5000th of rebellion is going to cost you and your pregnant wife your happiness!

But I’m the overreactor. :)

Oh, and thanks for your silent support and very loud and public Fuck You-ery. What a peach you are.

Matteo,

“The Guild has a firm stance that if the other side gets paid then we should get paid.” No we don’t.

Our stance is, “You use our product, you pay us bitch.” We could care less if the “other side” is profitable. And that’s the way it should be.

Look, maybe you think my anger is misplaced. Obviously, one vote is not going to sway this thing one way or another - and I concede that a “no vote” is not the same thing as a “no”.

My point is just that this blog has a very public profile right now - especially after the WSJ article - and that encouraging other Guild members not to vote (which is what you’re doing, like it or not) seems kinda irresponsible to me.

Criticize the WGA leadership all you want. But I think that anything less than a united front on this is counterproductive at best and dangerous at worst.

Just my two cents. Please understand that there’s a lot more riding on the outcome of this negotiation than your principles. (And I apologize for the profanity.)

Dear “Freelance Story Analyst”,

Craig is not responsible for your mortgage or your pregnant wife. He can do what he wants with his life (and his vote) and so can you.

As you rightly pointed out “you have to pick your battles.” He picks HIS battles, you pick YOURS. Don’t try and impose your battles (or your mortgage and pregnant wife) on others.

Fine. I take it back.

Of course, Craig has every right to do and say whatever he wants. It’s his vote, his blog.

All I’m saying is that the Guild should do what it has to do to make sure that the negotiation goes their way, which includes the SAV.

I personally don’t think they crossed a line, but I’m not a WGA member and I don’t have a vote, so I’ll shut up now.

SML, in regards to your point about “profitability not being an issue, why exactly do you think the producers are reluctant to give us a percentage of the Internet and would prefer to opt for “a long term study” instead?

Also, when did the Guild ever use the term “bitch” in their statements?

INT. WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST - DAY

A WGA librarian - that smug older one who deliberately misunderstands your questions so she can tell you what’s what - is opening ballots.

A dark haired kid in thick glasses assists.

        LIBRARIAN
    It's got to be here somewhere.     

        GEEKY ASSISTANT
    I found it - Craig's ballot!

The old crone snatches it and RIPS it open.

        LIBRARIAN
           (nodding)
    Just as I suspected:
    Craig Mazin voted YES.

        ASSISTANT
    Yes?! 

        LIBRARIAN
    Yes. We've got him now.

        ASSISTANT
    But...didn't he say 
    he was going to vote yes?!

        LIBRARIAN
    NO! I'm sure I heard him say...
    something else.

        GEEKY ASSISTANT
    But you always -

        SMUG LIBRARIAN
    Silence! No talking.

The assistant curses under his breath, and pulls up The Artful Writer.com on his computer.

        GEEKY ASSISTANT
    Sure he did, look it's right -

        LIBRARIAN
    SILENCE!

The kid cringes.

    Don't you see? 

        GEEKY ASSISTANT
    No. Not really.

        LIBRARIAN
    Fool! That's just what 
    he WANTS us to think.

        GEEKY ASSISTANT
    What?! But why?

        LIBRARIAN
    THAT...is what

Um…I don’t see this happening.

In a time of turmoil and dissent, 56 delegates signed the Declaration of Independence. Contrary to depictions in paintings of the age, the famous document was not signed by the delegates as a group standing side by side in one room, but it was signed in secret. The signatories added their names to a growing list as the document made its rounds, one signature at a time.

Everyone who signed could plainly see the names of the men who’d already done so, and, presumably, they knew which delegates had not yet signed.

One story that’s been lost to history is the legend of Archibald P. Mazin, a well-to-do landowner who bravely stated in public that he would sign the Declaration of Independence. But the night before, a humble messenger riding a half-starved horse arrived at Archibald Mazin’s farm to remind the powerful landowner that the document he’d not yet signed would be arriving there in a few hours.

Archibald Mazin was so incensed by the hapless messenger’s insolence that he slapped the man senseless and shot his horse in the neck. As final retribution for this perceived insult, Mazin publicly REFUSED to sign the document.

According to Ken Burns, Archibald Mazin also held a grudge against signatory Button Gwinnet, as the diminutive Georgian once made disparaging remarks about the size of Mazin’s farmstead, but no one knows for certain if this had anything to do with Mazin losing his wits.

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

Craig,

” My 1/5000th of rebellion is going to cost you and your pregnant wife your happiness!”

Wow.

I wonder, sometimes, if you mangle the truth like this on purpose, of if you’re just completely blind to your own rhetorical dishonesty.

Really? You’re just another Guild voter? You don’t run a web page with a specific ideology, a specific following, and the Wall Street Journal didn’t just do a big piece on your and the site?

Sorta reminds me of this hilariously inept Fred Thompson speeches, where the big lug just comes out and says, “Hey, I’m just like you” to a room full of farmers.

Heh. And they buy it.

You maverick, you.

Anon,

Go prove to AMPTP that internet is profitable. Go. Win. Then you can say, “Hey bitches, internet is profitable.” Good for you. I’m proud of you.

As for how that translates into a contract, please explain.

I asked you why you thought the producers have resist giving us any percentage of the Internet, even 2.5? Why have they offered a long term “study” instead? Why do you think we might have to strike to get that 2.5 as opposed to them just giving it to us? You clearly know a lot so enlighten me? Why are the producers risking a strike and not partaking in, as our Guild has stated, “serious negotiations”? I’d like to know.

Here there be writers? not if you look at 126+127.

The fact that the sanctity of the vote just eroded a little seems to have gotten lost in the “well, it’s for a good cause” shout down. It’s exactly this myopic thinking that has hindered a guild’s ability to project forward on trends and future revenue streams.

I know the NOW is looming large, but that makes it more crucial to look at the bigger picture and implications of actions that are made today.

Perhaps the phrase SML should be using here is “first-dollar gross.” Is anyone here against that?

That’s essentially what the DVD model is: a cut of incoming revenues, completely independent of profitability. (A paltry cut, in that case, but still a cut.)

And that’s what we ought to be demanding across the board, online or anywhere else: If money flows in for the use of our work, we get a cut. Period. They can figure out how they’re going to turn a profit on the remainder of that money; that’s their problem, and we should no more be concerned about it than they should be concerned about our finances. I just bought a big house, and it turns out that my cut of these revenues won’t be enough to cover the mortgage? My problem, not theirs. They grossed $50 million, but the marketing campaign alone cost them $60 million? Their problem, not mine.

Whatever the percentage turns out to be, that’s the fundamental principle we should be insisting on. If they don’t like SML’s suggestion of 2.5%, then fine; let’s negotiate a number we can all live with.

But they need to be made to understand, very clearly, that “zero” is not an acceptable number for this purpose. And that’s what they’re proposing at the moment.

(Okay, and while we’re at it, they need to further understand that .3% isn’t really going to cut it anymore, either.)

SML’s presentation of his thoughts seems to have confused/angered a lot of people for some reason, but he’s exactly right. It’s in keeping with everything Ted’s ever said about authorship, too: It’s our work, our intellectual property, and we’re granting them the right to use it in exchange for something. Not just because they were nice enough to let us write it.

If U.S. work-for-hire laws don’t recognize that principle inherently, well…that’s why it’s worth a strike threat to see to it that our MBA still does.

Look, this may seem silly to say… but I’ve been a member of the WGA since I was fifteen. The producers just put out a statement on the local news that, in the event of a strike, writers can continue working and being paid if they quit the Guild.

Clearly, tensions are running high and feelings amongst us are rubbed raw. I doubt the assistants at Fox who were just told there’s no more overtime for them, due to this escalating situation, love either the producers or writers right now.

My plans for this evening are to get royally drunk, smoke funny looking cigarettes and take comfort in fact that our negotiating committee looks a lot like the team from MUNICH.

I don’t want a strike… but if we go on strike, I won’t be attacking fellow members whether they voted yea or nay or not at all. I’ll just grab a fuckin’ picket sign and hear William Holden’s voice from THE WILD BUNCH saying: “Let’s go.”

Oh, and forgive the profanity, Craig.

Anon,

It’s a serious issue… FOR THE AMPTP!!! They want us to talk about it. Sit in it. Rub it all over our bodies. Why? Because they can fight that battle (with their creative accounting) and win.

Get it.

But they can’t win when we say, “Pay us every time you use our product, bitches.”

And here’s the trick, creative accounting doesn’t hold up in a court of law (re: New Line/Jackson). So let’s define the revenue streams, let’s get our percent, and, if/when those bitches are still claiming poverty, let’s sue the skin off their asses.

Anon P.

Yes. First dollar gross. High five.

Wow, what a disappointing attitude, Craig. Given your previous posts (many of which I haven’t agreed with), I expected a more thoughtful reaction than deciding to hold your electoral breath until you turn blue, because then they’ll be sorry. A fellow writer called you to try to get the vote out. Of course they have a list of who has voted and who hasn’t. That’s been the case in every WGA election in the past. It’s just you didn’t know it because no one called you before. And that’s because never in the past has your vote mattered so much, so people were spending their Saturday trying to reach out and make sure you took part in this crucial election. But you had to go and blow it. And that’s a shame.

SML, just to be clear, I undertand your point and hope you see mine: I’ve been offended by the offer of NOTHING. That’s what I’m talking about. I’m not interested in their studies when they’re already making money.

As far as profits, that’s what all these auxiliary markets ensure over the long haul… so I’m not interested in their claims that they’re in the hole and must scrutinize these new streams of revenue without cutting us in during the interim.

Keep in mind, I’m a producer too. Technically, I cheated myself as a writer on my own DVD sales. The scribes made mere pennies.

And I agree, 2.5 isn’t enough… but it’s better than what’s been offered: Nothing.

Nikki Finke just posted a story about the record number of votes in favor of a strike and called us a “unified” Guild. Maybe our post should reflect that here.

I agree with “The Wild Bunch” stuff.

Alan,

I get it. But I’m not saying we should wait for their studies, what I’m saying is their studies shouldn’t matter. They use the product, they pay for it.

We’re on the same side, I think.

Matteo… nevermind.

While we need to be compensated regardless, the movie “Smokin’ Aces” turned its profit thanks to DVD and video downloads. Thanks to those markets, the studio is now talking about making a straight to video sequel.

That’s all the “study” I need to hear from the producers.

Thanks to Mark Gunn for the following #’s

Here are the final numbers (East and West combined):

5,507 votes 4,974 Yes (90.3%) 533 No (9.7%)

A point of interest:

In the AMPTP’s “limited proposal” (the one they took off the table after the WGA refused to negotiate toward it from our pattern of demands), the item titled “New Media Study” stipulated that during the contract period the study is to be conducted, the AMPTP will make payments on internet use of tv shows and movies produced under the MBA since 1971.

The rate they proposed for payments on use in the download/sales market was the DVD formula, but the Guild does have the authority — yes, the authority, the contractual, legal, enforceable authoriy — to make them negotiate not only on that rate, but on rates for all other markets that have evolved since 2001 except download/rentals (there’s already an agreed-upon rate for that: 1.2% of 100%).

And, before people start pointing out how stupid I am and how I don’t know what I’m talking about and start making terrible, extended analogies comparing me to traitors and quislings and the what-not, just go to the AMPTP website, download the .pdf of the “limited proposal,” and read the entirety of the “New Media Study” item for yourselves, including “Period of Experimentation” on page 2.

• Ted

Thanks, Ted. After hearing Guild reps and others characterize what the AMPTP is offering as “nothing,” it’s nice to know it’s symbolically “something,” but who knows if the final agreement will show any movement. What does the DGA get in those areas? Anyone know?

Counter said in response, “…We are not surprised with the outcome of this vote, given reports of how this election was conducted.”

Way to undercut our cause again! You go, girl. We will all remember.

In light of what Ted posted, it seems this excerpt from an article became clearer to me: “In its initial proposal, the AMPTP also stated it didn’t think it should have to pay anything for work for the Internet: The Guild hereby knowingly, clearly and unmistakably waives its right to bargain over additional terms and conditions of employment of writers of literary material for new media.

Guess where the term “nothing” is coming from?

Matteo Cashman —

Okay, maybe you can explain something to me.

In their “limited proposal” for the 2007 MBA, the AMPTP agrees to pay residuals for use on the internet or similar delivery systems of all tv and movies produced under the MBA since 1971.

They also agree to carry the “Sideletter on Exhibition of Motion Pictures via the Internet” in the 2004 MBA into the 2007 MBA, which includes a term requiring residual payments on download/rentals at the rate of 1.2% of 100%.

The Sideletter in the 2004 MBA also includes a clause that allows us to re-open the 2004 MBA to negotiate a basis for payment for all forms/markets of internet exhibition other than ddownload/rentals, but including download/sales, and including markets that have evolved since 2001 (when the sideletter was originally negotiated). Provided that re-opener is invoked prior to the expiration of the 2004 MBA, any terms we agree to will be in the 2007 MBA, as well.

Yes, the AMPTP is proposing the DVD rate for the download/sales market, but that shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, and is also subject to negotiation (provided we re-open the sideletter, that is).

My question is:

How is this “symbollically ‘something’”?

• Ted

Hey, Olson…

I wrote my post on the 18th. All votes were due in by then. I wrote it mid-day.

I’d like to think my other post, made days ago, urging people to vote “yes” had more of an impact.

I don’t say this to argue with you, because you’re a fraud anyway. I’m just pointing this out to anyone who might actually think you have a point, rather than a tiresome vendetta.

A fellow writer called you to try to get the vote out. Of course they have a list of who has voted and who hasn’t. That’s been the case in every WGA election in the past. It’s just you didn’t know it because no one called you before.

It’s rare that you can say with 100% certainty that someone arguing with you is wrong, but it happens every now and again.

You are 100% wrong.

Whatever you need to tell yourself, Craig. You sat out the most important election in a generation. As far as I’m concerned your opinions are irrelevant. Snark all you want, I won’t be reading.

Dear Ted:

As far as my attempting to explain something to you, if you want to posture about how much more knowledgible you are than I as I grapple to understand these complex issues, then feel free. There have been many, many articles that have stated that the AMPTP has been offering “nothing” in regards to “new media” as opposed to not offering increases to the existing formula.

I asked you for a little help, but not to be belittled.

Ted, could you also explain the plot of POTC World’s End? I had trouble undertanding that too.

Jesus, is this still going on?

We sound like a bunch of Democrats and Republicans. The vote’s in. Craig did what he did (or didn’t) because he believes in something. That’s a valuable enough quality in this day and age — believing in something (and having the balls to put it in writing).

How’s the shoot going Craig? Excellent blog (usually).

:)

Matteo —

I wasn’t belittling you. I was asking a serious question. I look at the AMPTP’s initial proposal in the context of the 2004 MBA, and, while its not a deal I would accept, there’s enough substance to it that I would not have rejected it out of hand.

However, that is exactly what the Negotiating Committee did. As far as I can tell, they saw it the same you do.

I don’t understand the Negotiating Committee’s decision, but I can’t ask them because of confidentiality issues (well, I could ask, but none of them could say, so, same dif). But I can ask you.

So I did.

• Ted

Having found this site and reading many of the comments on this website brings up images of someone trying for years to get into a very exclusive club, only to finally peak through the window to discover it’s really just a big frat house inhabited by a bunch of college students away from home for the first time, bickering and insulting one another.

Truly fascinating, I must say.

I know that I’ve come very late to this discussion, but I am a little surprised by some posters’ apparent lack of knowledge about how real elections are actually conducted in the United States. When you go to vote at your local precinct, or mail in that absentee ballot, the election workers are required by law to publicly post your name and whether you have or have not yet voted and to refresh the list at least once an hour.

In the words of the California Election Code Section 14294. “At all elections, a member of the precinct board shall mark, on one of the copies of the index posted at or near the polling place, the name of each person who has voted, by drawing a line through the name of the voter, with a pen or indelible pencil. The board member shall mark off the names at least once each hour, to and including 6 p.m. In all counties not using the index roster, the board member shall draw a line under the last name signed in the roster at 6 p.m. or at the time of discontinuation of this procedure, whichever occurs last.”

The whole point of this required procedure is so that highly partisan workers for the various parties and candidates and issues can hound you or persuade you to come down and vote - and vote their way.

As far as I know, it’s how every “secret ballot” election in California is conducted. It is required by law. To the best of my memory the public posting of all voters names with an indication of whether they have yet voted has been required since the very first election I voted in - and served in as a campaign worker “getting out the vote” by calling people who hadn’t yet voted for my candidate.

I just don’t see how the the Guild did anything wrong in copying California law. And I really don’t comprehend how these standard procedures mean a vote itself isn’t secret. Common sense of course tells us that a “secret election” only contemplates that the content of a person’s vote will be secret, not the fact that he or she voted will be secret - otherwise we couldn’t hold public elections in which anyone in the polling place, including partisan observers, can see a voter walk up to the ballot box and deposit their ballot. We’d all have to approach the polling place in chadors, men and women alike, and whisper our name to the workers. Not exactly the traditional American image of a town meeting.

If some of the posters volunteered their time next year to actually elect a democratically inclined Congress and President, they’d see it’s how it’s always done. And if it weren’t, the US would have an even more dismally poor turnout in elections.

By acknowledging what was on the table, I was expressing surprise that it wasn’t as dire as continually represented. While I could see not accepting it, it also wasn’t the “nothing” as often described.

The members of negotiating committee were fairly candid in the general meeting. Are you sure they wouldn’t answer your questions?

It’s interesting how Nikke Finke’s column seems to be praising the way the negotiating committee has handled everything. I wish I could be a fly on the way this coming Monday.

Matteo —

This is from the WGAw website, an article titled “Take My Study … Please,” done in a question-and-answer format:

Why shouldn’t we take seriously the Companies’ idea to conduct a three-year study of non-traditional media?

How can we take an idea seriously that means stalling for three years the bargaining of fair contracts for the people who create and produce the content that makes the entertainment industry so successful?

They say that residuals can’t be paid until a dominant business model emerges.

The fact that delivery systems are changing, and will continue to change, does not mean that residuals shouldn’t be paid now.

Residuals in this area will be groundbreaking.

Not so. In 2001, the Companies negotiated the first new technology residual, agreeing to pay 1.2% of the distributor’s gross receipts for Internet rentals. Now that other forms of distribution have arrived, such as the sale of downloads or advertising-supported streaming, it is time to negotiate fair residuals to cover these new uses.

As you can see, the Guild’s position is that the AMPTP’s proposal for the study was an attempt to stall, to avoid bargaining on internet residuals and paying internet residuals until the study was complete. And that’s the position that was reported in the press when the Guild rejected the proposal, sometime during the first two or three days of bargaining.

Even though, in the actual proposal itself, the AMPTP agreed to pay residuals in accordance with the Sideletter in the 2004 MBA … which the Guild has had the authority re-open since January 1st to bargain for fair residuals to cover all uses in all internet markets.

So I wouldn’t have expected anything other than the same position to be re-stated at an informational meeting.

• Ted

Ted, thanks for posting the actual stances as opposed to the demonized view of the other side.

The statements we’ve heard were that the producers refused to budge or negotiate at all from these points you’ve shown excerpts from, but the statements made at the meeting said the producers were also pushing for a slew of roll backs that had nothing to do with the residual reform they’ve already withdrawn.

Do you have any information on the areas the producers are endeavoring to roll back on?

[/b]There?s a difference between what you?re talking about and what Craig?s talking about. Yes, having names on the envelopes insures a fair process. That doesn?t mean, however, that that information can or should be passed on to other members, or used in any way except its primary purpose. [b] I very much disagree. While how your vote is secret, if you voted is very much a public concern. Certainly to make sure multiple votes aren’t tabulated at the minimum.

In NYC, the list of people who voted is available during election day to the party leaders so they can compare the data to their party member list to see who hasn’t voted and follow up.

If someone is running for a seat on the board, I’ve like to know if s/he’s been voting on a regular basis.

I would rather have the guild follow up and call me about me vote then have it get lost in the mail or misplaced and not counted. Or, saying I was distracted, remind me. It’s a guild vote, why wouldn’t the guild be involved? If only to make sure my non-vote was a protest and not just apathy. [/b] ?I can see where a ?get out the vote? drive would be more intense. Especially if the name of a FORMER BOARD MEMBER comes up on the ?hasn?t voted? list. Good example to set. Blog about the election then forget to vote. Real good example to set. Especially after you announced your secret vote on a public blog. Yeah, that makes sense.?

As annoying or stupid as Craig?s actions might seem to you, they?re his to make. [b] and if they’re made out in public, well, public debate. [/b] If Craig vigorously supported the strike here, but secretly voted no, that would also be his right, and if you had somehow come by knowledge he had done this, it would NOT be your right to reveal. [b] Well, duh. Secret ballot. of course.
[/b] It?s a simple principal at work here, one central and essential to our process. It?s kinda shocking to me how many people don?t get it (or, in Craig?s case, only selectively apply it). [b] Again, disagree. Two different principles. Secret ballot vs. public declaration of submitting a ballot (or not).

Ths cynic in me would say it was almost like he was looking for an excuse not to vote.

sorry about the above post. I tried to format it, honest I did. Sorry.

trying again…

There?s a difference between what you’re talking about and what Craig’s talking about. Yes, having names on the envelopes insures a fair process. That doesn’t mean, however, that that information can or should be passed on to other members, or used in any way except its primary purpose.

I very much disagree. While how your vote is secret, if you voted is very much a public concern. Certainly to make sure multiple votes aren’t tabulated at the minimum.

In NYC, the list of people who voted is available during election day to the party leaders so they can compare the data to their party member list to see who hasn?t voted and follow up.

If someone is running for a seat on the board, I?d like to know if s/he?s been voting on a regular basis.

I would rather have the guild follow up and call me about me vote then have it get lost in the mail or misplaced and not counted. Or, saying I was distracted, remind me. It’s a guild vote, why wouldn’t the guild be involved? If only to make sure my non-vote was a protest and not just apathy.

I can see where a *get out the vote* drive would be more intense. Especially if the name of a FORMER BOARD MEMBER comes up on the *hasn’t voted* list. Good example to set. Blog about the election then forget to vote. Real good example to set. Especially after you announced your secret vote on a public blog. Yeah, that makes sense. **?As annoying or stupid as Craig’s actions might seem to you, they’re his to make.** .

true. It’s me; not voting when I could is nothing I’d be announcing out loud.

If Craig vigorously supported the strike here, but secretly voted no, that would also be his right, and if you had somehow come by knowledge he had done this, it would NOT be your right to reveal.

Well, duh. Secret ballot. of course.

It’s a simple principal at work here, one central and essential to our process. It’s kinda shocking to me how many people don’t get it (or, in Craig’s case, only selectively apply it).

Again, disagree. Two different principles. Secret ballot vs. public record of submitting a ballot (or not).

Ths cynic in me might say it was almost like he was looking for an excuse not to vote.

In public elections, other-party activists certainly CAN tell whether we’ve voted or not. In fact the rolls of who has or hasn’t voted (among those registered to vote) are literally an open book at each polling place to any credentialed pollwatcher.

This includes operatives from every party and/or candidate on the ballot, plus good government organizations, the press, the police, and others.

It’s the reason you get a little doorknob-hanger if you don’t vote before about 2 PM. The only way to avoid this horrific exposure (!) is to strike yourself from the list of people eligible to vote.

In the present case, as long as you have the option to vote “present” or “abstaining” what’s the issue? They want to know who isn’t getting their guild mail, they want to know that everyone has had the chance to express their opinion.

Good for them, good for us!

Greg —

The AMPTP’s “limited proposal,” which includes the New Media Study, is different from the AMPTP’s “comprehensive proposal,” which is the rollbacks-apalooza. That’s the one that’s currently on the table. Although the residuals item was dropped, what’s left:

Effectively halves minimum upfront compensation (by inflating the “low budget” threshold tenfold or more across the board), prohibits the Guild from negotiating on behalf of writers in “new media” (ie, webisodes, mobisodes,etc), reduces separated publication and dramatic rights to a buyout that is credited against overscale compensation, makes reacquisition of theatrical screenplay so expensive it might as have been struck in its entirety, eliminates the “additional payment for no assigned material” in theatrical (meaning, the studio is getting the story underlying the screenplay for free), introduces terms that makes hiring 3, 4, 5 or 6 writers at the same time less expensive than hiring the same number sequentinally, eliminates interest payments on late pay, downgrades writers’ air travel from first class (same as directors) to business or coach, eliminates the required use of writing credit in advertising and marketing materials where the producer or director credit is used, makes it possible to assemble “clip shows” with no payments whatsoever to the writers of “clipped” scenes, cuts health & pension contributions, eliminates any ability of the Guild to enforce writer’s righ to view the director’s cut, removes the Guild’s right to administer credit arbitrations and for writers to serve as aribiters in credit disputes, and sets a contract term of 4 years, putting our negotiations out of sync with DGA and SAG negotiations for at least 12 years.

I’m probably missing some.

I disagree with the opinion that the Guild should take/have taken something off the table as quid pro quo for the AMPTP’s removal of the residual proposal. Right now, we are so far from the status quo represented by the 2004 MBA, writers would be better served to work without a contract indefinitely than for the Guild to accept any of the terms currently on the table (I think our pattern of demands includes things that shouldn’t have been on the table in the first place, but that’s a different issue).

• Ted

Re: #165

Ted, thanks for reiterating the “rollbacks-apalooza” which some people may not have seen. I found the desire to relinguish compensation for “clip shows” particularly egregious.

I had some clips included in a network anniversary special a few years back and was surprised to receive a check for it. I was under an assumption the network had gotten waivers because of the sheer volume of clips they used that encompassed fifty years. Also, these same scenes were also used as part of a “Dateline” trivia question regarding the eighties… and I never saw anything for that. My guess is because that was considered a “news show” and the other was a primetime entertainment special.

Had it not been for the Guild, I wouldn’t have known I was even due anything.

Ted,

I know this is your guys’ website, not mine, but I’m just wondering…is there any chance you could post that information somewhere more prominent than in the 165th post in the second thread off the main page?

Reason I ask: I’m one of the relatively few people (I’m guessing) who actually read that entire 32-pager from the AMPTP, and there are still at two items you’ve mentioned on your list (elimination of the “no assigned material” payment and changing the contract term to 4 years) that didn’t register with me at all. And I suspect a lot of people’s tolerance for wading through dense legalese in the first place is substantially lower than mine is.

Some of these items, to the best of my knowledge, haven’t been addressed publicly at all, even by the Guild, and, well…you guys do have a megaphone here. It’s clear that members of the press are visiting at least the main page and drawing information from it—not to mention many, many writers and members of the public at large. (Whereas the click-through down to this particular little backwater of the comments section is probably a tiny fraction of that traffic.) It might be nice if they could get a sense of the full scope of what management is trying to foist upon us here.

You and I have argued a little in some of these postings (though politely and Socratically, I like to hope) about the decisions and motivations that have brought us all to this point, but I do know that the depth of your knowledge on the specifics and history of the MBA, and this whole sphere of the law in general, is among the very best of anyone in this business. I’m certainly not the least bit surprised that you caught things in the AMPTP’s proposals that I had missed. And I imagine we’d find ourselves in complete agreement in our reactions to just about every item on that list.

In short: Any chance you could post something like this out on the main page, where more people might see it?

Just a thought. Thanks in any case for all the analysis and insight, freely offered….

• Again, disagree. Two different principles. Secret ballot vs. public record of submitting a ballot (or not).

Ths cynic in me might say it was almost like he was looking for an excuse not to vote. *

If you follow the news, you’ll see that this poster is right. Politicians and activists are taken out to the woodshed on a regular basis when it’s discovered that they haven’t voted. Obviously, there’s a public record of that.

Craig overreacted because he was emotional after shooting fifteen hour days. He should have chilled and he should do a mea culpa, IMHO. But, he can do what he wants. It’s his blog! And, he’s chosen, to rationalize as you can see in the next thread. There was corruption in the past, so that means there is more to come. Not a bad argument, but he still freaked out over nothing.

Anonymous P. -

My list omits the effects of the rollbacks on Television Separated Rights, becuase I’m not familiar enough with that section of the MBA to know what’s being changed. Any chance you could post a brief summarization of those, so I can add them to list before its posted as a main-page entry?

Thanks,

• Ted

Ted,

First off—wow. Thanks for heeding my suggestion, if you weren’t planning to do this already. (And hell, thanks if you were, for that matter.)

I have not myself had the pleasure of ever being affected by any of these Television Separated Rights, so the first thing I did was contact a friend who’s set up a couple pilots and had one go briefly to series, just to see if I could get her take on the subject. Her reply, however, pretty much boiled down to: “I pay my lawyer to understand that stuff for me.” In response to further gentle nudging, she added (pretty politely, I must say—and hi, if you’re reading this) that she was not interested, at this point in time, in incurring any potential extra legal fees in order to have him indulge my curiosity on her behalf. Which was quite understandable.

So that left just me. I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I do reserve the right to play one in the privacy of my own home late at night. And everything that follows is the result of my doing exactly that, so Proceed With Caution, please.

(Also, I’m essentially describing all this stuff in the form and length that would be necessary to teach it to me, so please bear with any long-winded explanations of Shit You Already Know…)

First, here’s my understanding of what exists in the TV world currently:

The general basket of separated rights pertaining to television includes pretty much all the same ones that pertain to theatrical—publication, merchandising, dramatic rights, interactive rights, etc. In the TV case, using the material as the basis for a theatrical movie is also one of the separated rights in the mix (just as the separated rights in the theatrical case include using the material as the basis for a TV show). So far, so similar.

Movies of the Week do have some sequel provisions that differ from those for a theatrical release. In essence, the company is obligated to go back to the original writer and offer him the same or better terms to write the sequel—and continue doing so on future sequels, for however long that writer continues to receive sole writing credit on the immediately preceding sequel. If the writer doesn’t take the gig and/or doesn’t receive sole writing credit on any sequel, then this first-refusal obligation goes away, but the company still has to pay flat fees to the writer, on a descending scale, for the next couple of sequels; I believe it tapers off to zero after that.

For a series pilot, probably the most-important-by-far rights are the “series sequel rights”—which are essentially payments that are owed to the writer of the pilot for each and every episode of the series that is ever produced thereafter, regardless of whether he or she has any active involvement with the series at that time. The current minimums for those are $1,646 for a 30-minute episode, and $3,127 plus change for a 60-minute episode. (Programs of other lengths scale differently, but those are the basic ones.)

There’s also a provision for the company to produce a second pilot if they’re not happy with the first one. In that case, basically, the writer has to be paid the same amount over again to deliver a new teleplay (or story, or format, or whatever they bought originally); after that I believe the company is free to bring on other writers and rewrite as they please.

Episodes of a series after the pilot don’t carry any separated rights of their own, except in special cases, such as an episode that’s being used as the pilot for a spin-off series.

(And where miniseries fit into all of this, I simply couldn’t figure out. Sorry. Maybe someone else out there knows the answer….)

The reacqisition terms for material purchased but not exploited are very similar to theatrical—a waiting period after delivery, adjusted for active development, after which the writer can reacquire the material by refunding all compensation paid for it.

The conditions under which the separated rights can be exercised are also similar to theatrical—waiting periods apply, company is entitled to right of first refusal, etc. The details may vary here (I didn’t compare them all side by side to find out, frankly), but the spirit is the same….

However, there’s one big variable that seems to be unique to television, and that’s the concept of an “upset price.” Essentially, if the company pays Guild minimum (or up to a certain amount above it) for a pilot, then all the separated rights remain with the writer, subject to MBA provisions, as normal. However, if the purchase price is greater than a specified, higher threshold (the “upset price”—which seems to be about double the applicable minimum price in each case), then the company may elect to negotiate with the writer for an outright purchase of the separated rights. (Or, I guess, whatever other sort of deal is agreeable to all parties involved.)

The MBA says that this acquisition of separated rights has to be worked out in a completely separate agreement from the original purchase of the material, but somehow, one suspects both of these deals would probably end up getting signed in the same room on the same day, and would essentially function as one big contract that happened to be stapled in two different pieces…but anyway, that’s what it says.

…And with that massive preamble out of the way, here are the differences—that I was able to find—between that existing set of arrangements and what the AMPTP is proposing now. (Listed in order of occurrence, rather than importance.)

1) All the current “separated rights” would go to the company at time of purchase, rather than remaining with the writer, and the writer would only get pre-specified payments for the company’s exercise of certain of those rights thereafter: a flat 6% for publication; a flat 6% for merchandising; guild minimums for theatrical, dramatic and interactive uses; plus a one-time payment of $2,500 that would cover all other rights, forever. (I don’t believe they even have to pay that $2,500 unless/until they actually move to exploit at least one such right, but once they’ve paid for that first usage, all the others are free.)

So far, I believe this is virtually identical to what’s in the theatrical proposal—but see the very important caveat concerning “upset prices,” below….

2) The per-produced-episode payments due to the writer of a pilot for the “series sequel rights” would be maintained at their current levels, with no stepped increases, through 2010. (Again, that’s $1,646 for 30 minutes, $3,127 for 60 minutes.)

3) The clause that requires the writer to be paid again for the production of a “second pilot” is gone. Under this proposal, they can hire a new writer immediately to write the second pilot—and the original writer isn’t even owed a “series sequel” payment for the production of that second pilot, as s/he would have been entitled to had they produced a second episode of the series instead.

4) The condition requiring that the original writer of a Movie of the Week be offered equal or better terms to write its sequel (and its sequel, and so on, for as long as that writer continued to receive sole writing credit) is gone.

Those descending-scale payments to the original writer for production of the subsequent two sequels do remain in this proposal, however; color me surprised there. (The company just no longer has any obligation to continue doing business with the same writer who made the original production sufficiently successful to warrant a sequel in the first place.)

5) “Upset prices” for network primetime would continue at their current values, with no stepped increases, through 2010…

6) …Although a new, significantly lower set of “upset prices” would go into effect for syndication, basic cable, and so forth—basically everything other than network primetime. These new numbers seem to range from about 65% to 80% of the corresponding numbers for network primetime; I’m not sure exactly what formula was used to come up with them.

7) But here’s the Very Important Caveat: The meaning and function of the “upset price” would be changed entirely under this proposal. Currently, the writer retains separated rights if the purchase price is below the “upset price”; if it’s above, then the company is able to bargain separately with the writer for an outright purchase of those rights. Under the new proposal, if the purchase price is lower than the “upset price,” the company gains all rights, and the writer is entitled only to the flat payments described earlier—6% of merchandising and publication, guild minimum for theatrical, and so forth. If the purchase price is higher than the upset price, however, then the writer is entitled to…nothing. Ever. It’s a total buyout.

(Actually, it appears that the writer of a pilot would still continue to receive those per-episode payments that are due for the use of “series sequel rights,” regardless of whether the upset price had been exceeded. So that was nice of them. But note that this is a one-time payment upon production of an episode, not a residual.)

8) Oh, yeah…and reacquisition of material is subject to all of the same bullshit as it is in the theatrical proposal: 8-year waiting periods, no more than 2 attempts to reacquire in any 2-year period, company rather than Guild specifies the terms, etc., etc. (I assume you’re pretty familiar with these clauses already, so I’ll leave it at that.)

9) And lastly, all the above changes and restrictions would also be applied to programming covered under Appendices A and B of the MBA, which includes things like quiz and variety shows, as well as direct-to-video and pay TV productions. Among others.

…And that, at long last, is that. Hope it’s useful to you.

Oh, and let me add: If it would be of any help, or save you any time and effort whatsoever, please feel absolutely more-than-free to “lightly paraphrase” and/or just directly lift anything I’ve written here into your upcoming piece; no attribution of any kind would be requested or needed if you did so. I figure this all falls under the realm of “public service announcement” anyway.

—Come to think of it, perhaps the appropriate phrasing for the preceding paragraph would be: “No payment or credit of any kind shall or should be given for any re-use or online exploitation of the literary material.” Seems far more in keeping with the spirit of the times, eh? :)

Ted stated: “I look at the AMPTP’s initial proposal in the context of the 2004 MBA, and, while its not a deal I would accept, there’s enough substance to it that I would not have rejected it out of hand. However, that is exactly what the Negotiating Committee did…”

That’s factually incorrect. The AMPTP put forth two proposals simultaneously: one was the “Limited Issues” proposal (what Ted calls the “initial proposal”) and the other the “Comprehensive Package” (the long one with all the rollbacks.)

The NegCom attempted to negotiate off AMPTP’s “Limited Issues” proposal but were told it was a drop dead deal; i.e must be accepted in its entirety and not subject to negotiation. When the NegCom refused to accept it as presented the AMPTP removed it from the table.

In the New Media/Internet Sideletter the rates would continue to be paid AS THE AMPTP INTERPRETED THEM, an interpretation that is currently being arbitrated. It would have meant acceptance of the DVD rate for download sales and ZERO for ad-supported streaming video

Perhaps even more ominous, in the “Limited Issues” proposal there was a clause 2 “Promotional Uses” which states they “have the right to propmote, without restrictions or payments, any motion picture…” and which later states “use may be promotional even if the entire motion picture is exhibited and even if the use generates revenues…”

The only thing left open to negotiation in the “Limited Issues” proposal was “Salary rates (including upset price) and provisions governing pension and health contributions…” It’s unclear if they intended those few items to go up or down or in different directions.

All of the above has been posted on either the AMPTP or WGA web sites at various times.

It’s important to keep the facts straight and not be deluded by wishful thinking. The AMPTP would never allow their “initial proposal” (the “Limited Issues” proposal) to be the basis for a negotiation. It was take it or leave it.

Re: #156

“When you go to vote … the election workers are required by law to publicly post your name and whether you have or have not yet voted…”

True, but you are not voting for the election workers; the election workers are people who purport to be non-partisan, and it would be a huge problem if all of the election workers were, say, pro-life. On the other hand, if the pro-strike management is picking the people who are pushing the “get out the vote” drive, how can anybody expect any objectivity from the drive?

“In the words of the California Election Code Section 14294.”

It should be pointed out that this is irrelevant anyway, as I’m quite certain the WGA has its own set of rules already defined; I doubt that section of the book says “See California Election Code, Section 14294”.

“The whole point of this required procedure is so that highly partisan workers for the various parties and candidates and issues can hound you or persuade you to come down and vote - and vote their way.”

This is true. However, if all the election workers belonged to the same highly partisan group, how could you trust them to be objective?

Keep in mind, also, these people are calling you with an obvious, stated agenda. If you are a registered independent, you will likely not be getting calls from anybody (though they may have other ways of guessing). But if you are on the books as a Democrat, you’ll get calls from all the left-wing pushers. You’re not going to get a pro-death penalty group saying, “Hey, I know you don’t agree with us usually, but we feel democracy is so important that we’re reminding you to vote anyway.” No; these are people who are attempting to stack the deck by telling only the people they assume will vote the same way as them to vote; in some extreme cases, you have reports of Republicans calling black voters in Florida and telling them that the polls are full, they should vote next week instead … or the old “Democrats vote on Tuesday, Republicans vote on Wednesday” trick.

In any of those cases, it is obvious that the caller has a stated agenda beyond just getting out the vote. So it should immediately send up your red flags to get a call from an organization whose decision should not be made until the vote is done.

“I just don’t see how the the Guild did anything wrong in copying California law.”

wait, are you saying that, in California law, the same partisan people are working the polls and calling you if you don’t vote? ‘Cause before you said that those were two different sets of people, which is COMPLETELY different than what the WGA is doing — which is the entire point Craig is making.

“And I really don’t comprehend how these standard procedures mean a vote itself isn’t secret.”

Craig is postulating that if the pro-strike management of the board suddenly has information about who did or did not vote, it is not a huge leap for them to also suddenly have information about how people voted. I agree that he hasn’t proven any such thing — but anybody paying attention in the last few months has seen enough shenanigans by the board to not trust them as blindly as some people seem to want to.