On The Verge...

Question is, how much will Verrone and Young settle for? I expect they’d be thrilled with a penny on the dollar for internet. A half penny on DVD would seal the deal for sure.

What if Counter lowballs? Will V & Y go for a half penny rate across the board?

All that said, I really hope this thing is settled by this time Monday. (Sometimes, turkeys really can fly.)

People hate uncertainty and people have a neurobiological compulsion to find an orderly pattern in chaos. That’s one reason rumors can spontaneously generate in a situation like this.

Do you know what’s mightier than a quill and ink well? A sword and blood.

So, in the redesign I would like to see some swords and some blood and some rendering of knights and maidens and the like.

Good move going over to WordPress.

Too bad about the quill. I liked it.

Somewhere, Shroedinger’s Cat is purring.

…while simultaneously grinning a stiff little death rictus, of course.

But here’s hoping it’s the purring we’ll hear when they finally crack open the box…

I understand your position with regards to scabbing, but I was curious as to what your advice would be to aspiring writers who want keep in line with the guild.

Should we stop writing even though nothing we write is being paid for? Or is it fine for us to keep writing but wait until the strike is over before trying to sell?

Luckily I’m not even close to being in such a position, but I’m sure there must be many people who are.

Schrodinger’s cat?!? And I was called out for a pithy Derrida reference.

If Counter and Verrone hug in a forest and no one is there to record it on their iphone and post it on Youtube - did it really happen?

Josh “OIson” isn’t Olson, but O-capital-i-son.

Which is cute.

But also lame.

The entire point of the registration was to avoid ID spoofing, but an additional bonus of registration is that it allows me to ban people.

Fake Olson is banned.

If you spoof someone else’s ID, I’ll ban that ID. In an age where everyone has fourteen million different email addresses from which to choose, it’s not the end of the world. Find a better ID and come back.

‘Curiouser and curiouser’, said Alice.

New poster, non-Guild, not scabbing. When I check on the main page, it says the “Have you emailed me?” blog post has 116 comments, but then when I actually view the comments, only 3 are showing. That leaves 113 comments floating about in the ether, most of which were people picking fights over whether the rally turnout was good. Perhaps they all got nuked as un-Thanksgiving-ish.

There were some other items in that thread, though, including a question of mine I was curious to have answered. Maybe it belongs more in this post anyway, as it bears on what the Guild should be looking for out of these negotiations.

It’s simply (or not so simply) this: if the contract a writer signs with a studio gives that studio universal rights to any and all products and spinoffs of the writer’s work covered by that contract, then why aren’t the writer’s residuals universal as well? That is to say, why should we be having to negotiate specific rates for different channels of distribution (and dropping the ball on them, as with the DVD rate)?

It seems to me there should be a standard residual rate formula that covers any and all existing and new distribution mechanisms, including channels developed after the contract is signed. By the time the media conglomerates are beaming content directly into cybernetic implants along our optic nerve, we’ll have just managed to negotiate an internet downloading rate…

Other than the obvious profit disincentive for studios trying to pay out as little as possible, wouldn’t this be a much more fair and straightforward construct?

DA Emerson said:

It seems to me there should be a standard residual rate formula that covers any and all existing and new distribution mechanisms, including channels developed after the contract is signed. By the time the media conglomerates are beaming content directly into cybernetic implants along our optic nerve, we’ll have just managed to negotiate an internet downloading rate…

Just curious — how does the 1991 Peggy Lee precedent apply?

From Entertainment Weekly:

I’m surprised I feel as good as I do,” says Peggy Lee, splashing around in the swimming pool of her Los Angeles home. ”I guess when you’re a winner you feel good.” The 70-year-old chanteuse has every reason to feel cheerful. She has suddenly become a heroine among Hollywood’s old guard, the only victory symbol thus far for yesterday’s stars as they confront today’s mammoth home video industry. In Los Angeles County Superior Court last month, Lee, who suffers from a weak heart and diabetes and uses a wheelchair most of the time, emerged with a $3.83 million award in her lawsuit against the Walt Disney Company. Lee charged that the entertainment giant had violated her contract by releasing Lady and the Tramp on videocassette in 1987 without her permission. The singer had created four character voices in the 1955 animated classic and cowritten six of its songs. Her contract, signed in 1952, paid her only $3,500 but gave her the right to approve (and profit from) ”transcriptions for sale to the public.” According to the court, that includes videocassettes, an invention neither Disney nor Lee ever dreamed would exist. Lee’s case opened an ancient wound in Hollywood, where older performers have routinely been victimized. ”Nobody saw (video) coming and the studios took advantage,” snaps Celeste Holm (All About Eve). It wasn’t until 1971 that the Screen Actors Guild demanded-and got-residuals from movies used in ”supplemental” markets, which would later include videocassette. But the decision has also pumped new life into the town. Stars are dusting off decades-old contracts, hoping to find clauses that will allow them to share video’s $10-billion-a-year revenues.

DA Emerson:

I see all the comments.

Anyone else having this problem?

Leif Smart said:

Should we stop writing even though nothing we write is being paid for? Or is it fine for us to keep writing but wait until the strike is over before trying to sell?

The WGA will take a dim view of any non-member who worked for or solicited employment with (including trying to sell work written on spec) struck companies, the signatories to the WGA collective bargaining agreement.

Writing spec work on your own isn’t working for a struck company. Attempting to sell it to a signatory company during a strike is, or is the equivalent, because your spec work would substitute for work that’s being struck.

Working for a non-signatory company is not under the WGA’s jurisdiction. (Just keep your fingers crossed that the non-signatory company doesn’t engage in a deal with a signatory company regarding your project during the strike….)

As always, I am open to correction by those with more expertise.

I would just like to add my response to a comment in the previous posting in regards to the Zucker grudge.

Think of the process this way: your financiers are akin to your parents, which means they are children. You, the writers, are akin to their children; which means you are parents. Parents can and will act like infantile destructive children when they want, how they want, and why they want. You, however, are supposed to be responsible beings, more so than your parents. Thus, you need to do the responsible and right process and negotiate your deal immediately without continued childish behavior responding to childish behavior. The moguls in this dispute will not act or become responsible at all; you, the writers, have a duty to be responsible and productively calm.

In addition, the shareholders and heads of GE will and are thrilled and pleased with Jeff Zucker’s grudges. Remember what I wrote about the Cartmanland approach: it apparently works, giving the moguls leverage in greater news and sports, and increasing profits. You see, they can and will be children; you, however, have no measures to do such things for fear of calling upon one’s crap. And yes, it will occur that by January, if not sooner, American Gladiators will be on five nights a week for all eternity. The docile public love that malarkey, and will continue to demand the junk.

Something to ponder out loud while you restart negotiations today. Do the right thing and take responsibility, else your childish parents will expand their childish behavior. It is not a pretty sight, let me tell you. Do well today and in the future.

In hope for peace,

Lax24

Lax24 said: Something to ponder out loud while you restart negotiations today.

Don’t you mean the AMPTP restarts negotiations?

Lax24

Are you saying?

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1321252252/bctid1321238320

stuiec:

Caught your plea on last thread (although my original well wishing for Thanksgiving to all seems deleted).

Any stuffing will do, but sadly had none this year. Nor any cranberry come to think of it. But it was a big affair with about 30 people. Tons of other good food.

How was yours?

DA Emerson,

“Universal rights to any and all products and spinoffs of the writer’s work” isn’t really the state of things at the moment — in fact, one of the ugly features of the AMPTP’s big “Rollback Fiesta” proposal was an attempt to replace the current arrangements regarding separated rights in written material into something much more like what you’re describing. We very specifically didn’t want that.

And although the concept of “universal residuals” is nice in principle (and I’m entirely in agreement with it, in principle — our work should never be used without payment, period), the devil is and always will be in the details where any given medium or distribution machanism is concerned. Writers should get a cut of the money — absolutely — but what do we mean by “the money”? Distributor’s gross, producer’s gross, net profits (ha ha), licensing revenues, advertising revenues…? All the questions we’re negotiating and striking over today will come up in every new medium, and someone will always try to claim that our cut (assuming they even concede that we’re owed a cut in the first place) should be calculated based on whichever of those numbers they expect to be most advantageous to them and least financially rewarding to us. (Now try to extrapolate all that to cover future, as-yet-not-invented media whose revenues may come in forms that no one’s even conceived of yet, and it’s safe to say we’ll be having these arguments more or less forever.)

To echo something Ted posts about here a lot, our real disadvantage relative to, say, book authors is that we don’t retain ownership of our copyrights, and therefore we always have to approximate the rights of authorship after the fact, via contracts (the MBA plus whatever better concessions we’re able to negotiate individually in a given deal). This puts us on an inherently bad footing whenever a new, previously-unimagined distribution channel arises, because the studios/legal copyright holders can always claim (accurately, albeit shitheadedly) that the contract we signed with them didn’t grant us any right to get paid for the reuse of our work in that new medium — by definition, since that medium didn’t exist at the time.

You can’t really pull that kind of shit with a book author because, as the copyright holder, s/he has to specifically grant you the right to [sell / republish / adapt / whatever] the book in a new medium before you can legally do so — which means they get to strike their deals after the parameters of the new medium are (at least generally) known and understood. Whereas in our case, with the studios as legal copyright holder, the creators of previously-existing work almost always get screwed out of any payments whatsoever when a new medium in which to exploit their work arises: old movies rebroadcast on TV or sold on VHS/DVD (let alone on the internet), “classic” TV shows sold into syndication, etcetera, etcetera. The people in those cases are being paid nothing to this day. Not having any recognized authorial rights inherently dooms us to fight defensive, after-the-fact battles, in which we may win rights for the creators of current and future works, but the creators of earlier works frequently get left behind.

…On which note, the Peggy Lee case that stuiec brings up, like the case of Alan Spencer with the Sledge Hammer DVDs, doesn’t really seem like a “precedent” in any meaningful sense. Lee and Spencer were both lucky enough (or smart enough…but mostly lucky, I suspect) to have added some non-standard language to their contracts with an eye toward re-use of their work in an existing, thoroughly unprofitable medium (“transcriptions” in her case, “discs” in his), which the courts later held to also apply to a much more lucrative medium that hadn’t existed at the time. They’re heartening individual victories as far as they go, but in a broader sense, they mainly serve to illustrate just how much money everybody else lost out on when those later media came along and they didn’t have any intrinsic authorial rights to guarantee them similar benefits. These stories are notable and newsworthy because they’re isolated and abnormal, and that’s the real shame, in my opinion.

And I’d note that all this provides yet another answer to that whiny, oft-repeated, vaguely accusatory question, “Why are you guys striking over internet rights now, when it’s not even a viable business yet?”

(Sorry for such a long-winded response, but long-windedness seems to be the nature of the beast where these issues are concerned…)

Brian, impeccable timing! Like the HAL 9000, I could feel my sanity slipping away….

We had a relatively small gathering at my mom’s place - my wife, my kids and myself accounted for half the crowd. One kind of stuffing — plain bread — and three kinds of cranberries. Way too much food, but it was so good! My wife says next year we have to do it at our place so that more of the family can come.

Come on, Craig. You know the Santana situation. Your beloved Yankees will end up with him in a year. No team is going to be dumb enough to trade away prospects now so they can keep him for a year then watch Steinfuhrer buy him up. I’m guessing he’ll stay with Minn another year then head to the millionaire mercenery’s club.

You just had to use the analogy to rub it in a little, eh?

I liked the magic cake analogy better ;)

Then I’d start looking for a man called Dave.

My fam is on the other side of the country, so it was just a gathering of friends. There was the husband and wife hosts competing over who’s food was best. A spontaneous singing of Santa Lucia by an opera singer (where we accidently clapped too early in the song). Tango lessons in the courtyard by a man with a good eye for the ladies and succeeding (but was sadly not I). And plenty of discourse over what will happen with the strike (it still being Hollywood).

As far as Santana goes, he probably won’t move til the middle of the season at trade deadline. If Twins are in it, they’ll keep him. If out, they’ll move him. But jghoward is right, the deal will have to include an extension to get made. On a side note, love how the Yankees have spent $400 million dollars and haven’t addressed a single need yet.

I loves me some Mike Lowell. :)

Now that Torii Hunter’s gone, maybe the Twins will be interested in Coco Crisp for Santana.

(Hey, ya never know…)

Naw, not straight up. But maybe for Pat Neshek and another reliever.

Brian, the irony is that my late father’s name was Dave. Maybe that’s the problem….

since we’re doing sports analogies…

Over on another site, a fellow writer is losing his composure because he heard a less-than-auspicious rumor about today’s progress.

This made me think of how the kind of negotiation situation today, for the WGA & co., is very much like a football game (a very strategic game) with the WGA serving as the quarterback in the pocket.

A quarterback in the pocket appears exceedingly vulnerable — but a quarterback who can keep his focus, makes time work for him. While the crowd is screaming “throw!” and the coach is sweating bullets, the quarterback stays cool and dances till he finds the right opening.

stay cool. a delay is not the same as a setback.

Yessssss, pluck the quill! Pluck it, and burn it!!

Can someone explain what happened today?

I brought donuts to the main gate at Paramount and offered to walk the line. Was there for an hour and half, fully prepared to stay til 4 or 4:30. Suddenly, 3pm comes round and everyone packed up and left. Was there some kinda rally I missed out on hearing about? Went to Raleigh and Sunset/Gower and found no one there either.

I’m confused.

Brian, ya gotta check the schedule at http://www.wga.org/subpage_member.aspx?id=2536

They’ve mixed things up a bit.

Keaton:

Uh, what other site? What less than auspicious rumor?

Keaton,

Please point us to other site…

Muchly appreciated.

Craig,

Nikki’s already caught some heat for publishing that rumor. There are many people on the line whose response to the story was to wonder why they should bother coming out if there’s already a deal in place. If it’s true, great, but it still undercuts people’s resolve to picket. If it’s false, then it does more damage.

I see you posted the story before her. I wonder if you’re one of her sources.

Why are you so driven to keep posting “insider” rumors? Your track record’s bad, and you’ve been called on the fact that sometimes they damage what we’re doing. Why don’t you stick to commenting, and resist the urge to make yourself part of the story?

Also, I asked this earlier, and got no response: Is Ted on the line every day? If not, why not?

Clifford:

Thanks. Would’ve thought it important to keep the show of resolve up regardless of negotiations, but okay.

Dan Z,

Craig and Nikki do no harm by spreading a rumor. It’s the idiots that believe it as fact you have to worry about. And if this rumor quashes the strike, well, then we ain’t cut out to strike.

Dan Z:

I don’t know if Ted is on the line every day, although I can easily answer the “why not?” in a general sense….the Guild asks members to serve…lessee…I think it’s 12 hours a week now.

So if you do three four hour shifts…you don’t need to be on the line five days a week.

On Nikke Finke:

I’ve never spoken to Ms. Finke, nor have I had any dealings with her of any kind.

On Dan Z:

You seem a little preoccupied with the moral fitness of other people.

Dan Z - Chill out. Good gracious.

Like everything else on the internet, it’s buyer beware.

Plus, just because you give a certain level of importance to a blog post, doesn’t mean everyone is like you. In fact, most people don’t even read Finke or Mazin (sorry to equate you two, Craig). Even most writers or AMPTP stooges. Like Cliff said…if writers saw her post and acted on it, sheesh…you got bigger issues.

So…take everything with a grain of salt and let’s just hope she’s right (and Craig).

Stooge

Guess it was SML, not Cliff. Sorry.

Stooge

First of all, the Jonathan Handel post is superb. It breaks down the demands, consequences, and costs of any new writers deal into simple math. Thanks for linking to it.

As a supporter of the WGA, but not yet a member (Script Coordinator on several TV shows) I have to admit that I searched for a way for a studio to pay me to do work on a script, which I would then do badly. That would have taken money from said studios and given that money to me, while reinforcing that WGA writers are more skilled than others. I just couldn’t figure out how to do it without being known as an incompetent and a scab. Not the ideal reputation.

Support the strike, don’t break it.

LAX24, dude, parent/child, child/parent? Have you mistaken this blog for your 12-step group?

If that was supposed to be an answer to my thanking you for informing all of us, GE and GE investors about Zucker’s precarious mental state…

You might want to try again. Maybe hire a writer to help you out. Oh, wait, all the writers are on strike…

Jabborwocky, indeed.

I don’t mean to sound like a crank, because the Handel article really is quite useful, and it’s great to actually see someone wrestle with the numbers behind the sloganeering. But as far as I can tell, he’s assuming some kind of steady growth rate for prime-time broadcast revenues even as new media advertising takes off, whereas even this year, the network ad market already seems to be shrinking in terms of gross, and the consensus among the media buyers I know (well, there are only two of them, so I can’t really call it a consensus) is that at some point, there’s going to be a ‘tipping point’ when the online ad market cuts into broadcast and causes it to tank. So I’d guess the AMPTP financials are assuming (correctly, perhaps) an offset which Handel isn’t.

Which is another way of saying that the paragraph in his post about negative costs and how much needs to be apportioned to the DVD market, also needs to be thought about, big-time, in the streaming / downloaded TV market. And I think that might have a pretty big impact on the growth he’s projecting.

wordsmith: let me rephrase it for you in layman’s terms…

It sounds funny, I know, But it really is so, Oh, I’m my own grandpa.

I’m my own grandpa. I’m my own grandpa. It sounds funny, I know, But it really is so, Oh, I’m my own grandpa.

Now many, many years ago, when I was twenty-three, I was married to a widow who was pretty as could be. This widow had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red. My father fell in love with her, and soon they, too, were wed.

This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life, My daughter was my mother, cause she was my father’s wife. To complicate the matter, even though it brought me joy, I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy.

My little baby then became a brother-in-law to Dad, And so became my uncle, though it made me very sad. For if he was my uncle, then that also made him brother Of the widow’s grown-up daughter, who, of course, was my stepmother.

Father’s wife then had a son who kept him on the run, And he became my grandchild, for he was my daughter’s son. My wife is now my mother’s mother, and it makes me blue, Because, although she is my wife, she’s my grandmother, too.

Now if my wife is my grandmother, then I’m her grandchild, And everytime I think of it, it nearly drives me wild, For now I have become the strangest case you ever saw As husband of my grandmother, I am my own grandpa!

I’m my own grandpa. I’m my own grandpa. It sounds funny, I know, but it really is so, Oh, I’m my own grandpa.

I leave it to you to determine if the singer is Patric Verrone or Nick Counter.

StuieC,

“Creativity is great, but plagiarism is faster.”

From Unknown source.

I tend to think that the AMPTP and WGA won’t come to an agreement anytime soon. Why? If they wanted to find the magic number it would’ve happened before the strike…

Now?

It’s still a test of wills.

As a non-guild writer (and one with no reasonable expectation of joining the WGA in the foreseeable future), I’ve been on the picket line everyday since day one.

Why?

Simple, really. I didn’t like the tactics of the AMPTP via their mouthpiece, Nick Counter. Their arrogance and greed is simply astonishing given the enormous revenue the AMPTP takes in any calendar year. To be un-willing to share that revenue with the people who create the scripts for TV and movies offends me. To deny that the AMPTP can’t make money from internet downloads and other unknown future media sources is insulting to the intelligence of any rational person.

I’m not willing to say that these talks will lead to a relatively quick end to the strike. In light of the AMPTP’s arrogance it’s not likely they’ll be willing to admit that they’ve lost the argument. Moreover, while the tide is against the AMPTP now, it still hasn’t washed up far enough on the shore to take away their house. In other words it hasn’t hurt enough yet. But it will soon enough, maybe as soon as the “new” TV episodes run out, say late December, early January. By then the pain will deepen and then the AMPTP will come to its collective senses and offer a reasonable settlement to the WGA…

Maybe I’m wrong though. Maybe the AMPTP will realize their stupidity and say to themselves, “Economically giving up a tiny percentage of income won’t really hurt our bottom line, we’ll make it up somewhere else. Let’s settle this and get back to the business of making TV and movies.” And the WGA wins - as they should.

But until that day happens, this non-WGA writer will be out there on the picket line everyday with all the other hero writers reminding the AMPTP just how penny wise and pound foolish they’re being and showing how WGA solidarity actually means something.

Craig,

“So if you do three four hour shifts…you don’t need to be on the line five days a week.”

Zoinks!

If I were Ted, I’d ask you not to defend me. Of all the ways you could have answered the dude’s question (including ignoring it, cos who gives a fuck, anyway?), you chose the one that sounds like a prevarication.

There ARE no picket lines on Fridays, as a rule, Craig. We march four days a week, Fridays are reserved for rallies. When someone says they’re out on the line every day, it means they’re putting in their four. You’d know that if… you know…

Hey, how WAS that first day?

“On Dan Z:

You seem a little preoccupied with the moral fitness of other people.”

I really wish you’d print a rule book. When you attack people, it’s fair criticism, but when someone points it back at you, they’re overly concerned with the moral fitness of other people?

How about if you just care about this strike succeeding, and think people who seem to be working against that are worthy of criticism?

I can only speak for myself here, but my attitude is thus: I do not care that you are morally unfit. I care only that that moral unfitness-itude is being applied against the interests of myself and my fellow writers. Is that acceptible?

Dan Z,

You go, girl.

Still shooting, Josh. One more day to go.

Craig,

“Still shooting, Josh.”

Blanks. No fertile mind is getting pregnant from Josh’s ejaculations.

Sorry, Joshie, but Craig is right.

I’m a strike captain, and I’ve been told that if members do three four hour shifts they needn’t worry about attending Friday rallies. Some members miss a whole week and then make it up the following week.

A rally, a picket…it’s all the same as far as guild service is concerned. And we all put in the hours we can. Craig will too as soon as he’s wrapped.

I wish Josh could stop being such a hater. It’s not helping the cause.

As for Ted, I’ve seen him walking the lines at Sony quite often.

Sore Feet said:

I wish Josh could stop being such a hater. It’s not helping the cause.

Wait, wait, hold on a second — are you saying that Josh’s inordinate attention to Craig’s pecadilloes is actually working against this strike succeeding? Even if it only seems to be, that might make Josh a target for criticism by… Josh… no wait, that can’t be right… Norman, please coordinate!

Also, I asked this earlier, and got no response: Is Ted on the line every day?

When I’ve been in town, yes.

If not, why not?

Gee, has the Guild appointed you Grand Inquisitor? Or are you freelancing?

• Ted

Sorry - to clarify: I should have written, “what he perceives as Craig’s peccadiloes”.

Sore Feet,

“Sorry, Joshie, but Craig is right.”

Sorry, Sorey. I didn’t say he was wrong. Read the post again.

And while I don’t share Dan’s fascination with who marches and who doesn’t (If you can and you don’t, you’re a dickhead, and that’s about it), I do share his disdain for a Guild member who posts rumors about the negotiations during a press blackout.

It’s one thing to harp on the strike leaders during a strike, it’s another altogether to decide for yourself that you can act against their strategy.

Josh,

The blackout is for people actually involved in the negotiations. It is also for discussing all things strike related, so apparently you just broke your own rule.

And your implication was that he was wrong and you flat out said he was creating a minor difference to evade the truth (do YOU know what prevarication means? I sure as hell didn’t). So I guess you saying that you didn’t say he was “wrong” was a prevarication on your part.

Rant, rant, rant…mad, mad, mad. How will you go back to normal when this is all resolved?

Stooge

Clifford,

I obviously agree with your reading of Handel’s article. I think the most important point of it was: 1) attaching some numbers so we get it, even if many of the assumptions are wrong; 2) since we all understand that the WGA wants more and wanting more isn’t evil, it’s good to understand that the AMPTP isn’t evil either and they do face real difficulties.

For my part, I think to assume that every studio can just caugh up $30m a year is just as poor of some of the other assumptions he made. More to the point, for a studio to find that money (and it’s finding since they don’t have new revenue streams coming in that are IN ADDITION to the current ones…the new streams all canibalize the old ones, etc.) they will have to make cuts. Cuts mean less development, which means less script deals which means less money UP FRONT for writers. This is damn complex.

So for me…the point isn’t whether his math is great or his assumptions are perfect, but about understanding that this is not as simple as people would like to portray it and that the AMPTP aren’t just greedy pigs.

Stooge

Josh,

I’m confused. You’re harping on Craig because he’s posting rumours during a press blackout, but you’ve already stated numerous times that Craig is not the insider he makes himself out to be and his site isn’t influential at all. My confusion is over why it seems to matter so much WHAT Craig posts if he’s so out of the loop and everyone knows he is? It’s not as if he’s printing any inside information. Craig could post rumours that Counter and Verrone are carrying on an illicit affair during the negotiations, which is why they want to drag it out so long. If it was a rumour that everyone was talking about, posting it on the internet as a rumour he heard isn’t exactly breaking news.

I’m going to eat you all and make you one, because I’m not just a greedy pig. I’m also a unifier.

Stooge:

Your argument is based on whether or not the system currently in place is the best model possible for the studios. Yes, make cuts. Cut out the redundancy of multiple execs to green light a picture. The studios spend a lot of money making sure they are insulated from bad films (not talking quality, talking box office), just to make sure their jobs are safe. It’s a vicious circle.

Coughing up $30 million a year might make them rethink those choices. Partner one creative with one financial, like Mayer/Thalberg. Maybe we’ll start getting better films (now I’m talking quality).

Tim:

Josh is just mad because they quoted Craig in the trades yesterday again.

Ken Levine also posted a rumour that the WGA is close to a settlement. Let’s all go over to his website and break his virtual legs!!

Brian / Stooge:

How much does the average lower / mid level studio exec make yearly? This isn’t a rhetorical question— I don’t really know. But, I would guess, 100 grand? So if studios have to cut $30 million in expenses, it’s not going to be via personnel.

Although I’d also be somewhat surprised if they made deep development cuts, though that might be because, again, I don’t know what development budgets are like. I’m a lower-level TV drama guy— if I had a pilot deal right now, which I don’t, it’d probably be for, say, 70K. Which seems fairly cost-effective to me in terms of risk-reward for the studio. Since it seems like there are precious few of those insanely wasteful multi-year multi-million development deals out there like there were in the mid-nineties, except for people who are actually running shows, I don’t know where the fat is in development budgets.

Honestly, if I were a studio head and suddenly had to cut $30 (or $60) million from my budget, I would just pick the movie on my slate which seems least likely to be a hit, and not make it. Easier said than done, I realize….

Anyone considered all these published rumors could be an agenda setting designed to undermine WGA resolve. The writers really have all the power. There are no studios without writers. Producers are simply middlemen. Talent brokers. This stuff about negotiating as if both sides are equals is propaganda. Think about which side has more control over what’s in the media. Don’t believe the hype. They are attempting to manufacture consent.

Ken Levine is posting WGA rumors? I thought he quit the business and moved?

Hey all,

I worked the 5:30am to 8am shift at Fox truck gate this morning, and I’m happy to report that we turned 3 big trucks around. One of ‘em was like a garbage or refuse hauler. Another was a long-ass flatbed truck loaded down with rebar or maybe some sort of caging, probably to hold Chernin’s captive army of man-animal hybrids. The third truck we kept out was bearing a crane that was, evidently, intended to be used to help build the new Fox parking garage going in on Pico, just south of the truck gate.

It took some extended work to keep that third truck/crane out. The thing just sat there in the Pico median for over two hours. At first, the construction foreman was yelling at the driver/operator from across the street: “You wouldn’t be crossing the picket line! You’d just be going over there!” (note: going “over there” would, indeed, have entailed crossing the picket line, by about 5 feet). When that strategy failed to lure the crane operator (and his huge crane) across, they tried Plan B: the construction foreman peeled away a long temporary fence separating Pico from the construction site (a few feet south of the Fox truck gate). Then they tried to tell the crane operator that if he took his crane around our picket line (at the truck gate) and into that wide gap they’d just created (near the truck gate), that he wouldn’t be crossing the picket line, and everything would be fine. The crane operator sized it up and sent word to Erich Hoeber (our lot captain) via Bobby Bowman (the “My Name Is Earl” showrunner) that if we left that wide gap unpicketed, he might indeed be forced to drive his crane through. So Erich called an audible and we began to picket that wide gap, in addition to maintaining the truck gate picket. The bad news: manning this new, ad-hoc picket line required us to un-man Fox’s main gate (remember, this was the early, early picket shift, and so we weren’t fully staffed-up with picketers). But I suppose the trade-off was worth it, ‘cause we did manage to keep that crane sitting in the Pico median for an additional hour and a half. The driver stood there in the median the whole time, sometimes calling in to someone (his boss? his union rep?), and periodically photographing our picket lines (I suppose as evidence to show his boss or his union rep). And he was still there as the early, early morning picketers (including myself) were signing out around 8:15 and the next shift was taking our place.

By the way, 2 of those 3 drivers who refused to cross our line (including the crane guy) were not, in fact, Teamsters. They were members of the IUOE: the operating engineers union. We were told that the local, LA-based IUOE members are particularly sensitive to our cause, and to the importance of labor solidarity, and so very hesitant to cross our lines. That’s the good news. The bad news is that, evidently, the San Diego IUOE folks don’t care so much, so the studios (or their contractors) have started shipping those guys up here to do studio work. And there was, indeed, another crane working on the other side of that Fox construction site that, we were told, was being operated by workers from the San Diego local of the IUOE.

In any event, it was gratifying to throw yet another wrench or three (however small and temporary) into Fox’s gears this morning. And I’ll be out there bright and early tomorrow morning to do it all over again. And again and again until we get a fair contract.

See you out on the lines, guys.

Patrick Meighan Culver City, CA

Jon Raymond said (some interesting stuff).

Unfortunately, while I hear what you’re saying Jon, and I appreciate the rallying cry, I just don’t see it bearing much relationship to reality. There are 5,000-odd members of the WGA, and hundreds of thousands more trying to make it. The producers are pretty sure they’ll be ok without these particular writers, if it comes to it. (They’re probably wrong - the number of professional-grade screenwriters is small not just because of the limited number of paying projects out there - it really is demanding work, and requires a rare set of skills and experience).

On the flipsie, there are precious few major studios. Really, it’s only - what? - five media conglomerates with the assets to back major multi-million dollar productions? The studios are the gatekeepers. They have the power, because they control the money. Period.

Good writers are an extremely important part of the process, no question. But so are good directors, actors, cinmatographers, production designers, composers, technicians of every description… and a good producer is just as important.

Film (and TV) are a collaboartive medium. The people who bring those various and disparate talent groups together are the producers, and their job isn’t nearly as some would suggest.

I’m not an apologist for the AMPTP - far from it! - but they’ve got all the big guns in this fight. The keys for the writers are, to my mind, the following:

1. Solidarity among writers, both within the Guild and (even more important) among those who aspire to membership. TO this end, it’s disturbing to see the squabbles going on in this forum, but at least the consensus against scabbing is strong.
2. Solidarity with the DGA and SAG (by mutual agreement, as appears to be happening with SAG, or just circumstance). Similar issues are on teh table with the other guilds; the studios will have to come up with workable solutions at some point, and I would hope that would come by next summer, but it wouldn’t necessarily have to come much earlier.
3. The TV Production schedule. The production cycle for films means the studios can hold out longer than Guild members can, so it’s up to TV to put the screws to them. As we’ve seen in the past, they can replace a lot of content with non-Guild-covered material, but at the end of the day the demand for narrative TV should eventually force a settlement.

Those are good levers, but they’re not great, and as Pseudonymouse explains so well above, by not retaining copyright over our material we give up a huge amount of the power and influence we should have in this process.

Jon:

Trying to manufacture consent, huh? You might wanna rethink that word.

It’s safe to say that the only thing we know for sure right now is that talks are continuing and the blackout is continuing. That’s not a bad thing. Hopefully, progress will be made.

While I’d like to think the world works the way that Jon Raymond just suggested, that would be wishful thinking. Producers and studios aren’t middlemen - that title is a bit more appropriate to agents. And Raymond is correct to note that both sides are not equal here - but he’s got the shoe on the wrong foot, unfortunately. If he or anyone in the WGA believes he’s right, then we’ll be looking at a strike that goes through to July. The leverage for this season only lasts until early February. After that, it’s gone. And that’s nothing that either side doesn’t already know by now.

And I agree with the other posts that the moral judgments against other people who agree with you, but don’t take the exact same steps you do, are both unhelpful and unhealthy. I’m truly sorry that some writers, including Mark Evanier, are so angry that they want to blame everything on the other side. And I hope when this is over that they can find the ability to move on.

DA Emerson said:

The producers are pretty sure they’ll be ok without these particular writers, if it comes to it. (They’re probably wrong - the number of professional-grade screenwriters is small not just because of the limited number of paying projects out there - it really is demanding work, and requires a rare set of skills and experience).

On the flipsie, there are precious few major studios. Really, it’s only - what? - five media conglomerates with the assets to back major multi-million dollar productions? The studios are the gatekeepers. They have the power, because they control the money. Period.</blockquote><p>

Engaging in this argument makes more sense to me than discussing what’s on the table. In the latter case, we envision two sides seeking a middle ground or compromise. So right there you discount all your great arguments about how writers along with the other talent have the real leverage. The only reason they have the money is because you make it for them. Without you they are screwed royally and they know it. But they’ll do everything in their power to repress that logic and keep the argument about which side is going to give in first and what concessions will be made. In that argument, writers are concerned about ending the strike. In the other argument writers are pissed at being exploited and motivated to fight for what’s right, regardless of when the things is expected to end. Writers can’t expect an end. To do so undermines the cause.

Kay Reindl just posted some interesting opinions on her blog. While I continue to admire her commitment and the level of her anger, not all those opinions line up with reality.

I was around for the 1988 WGA strike, which did not end because the showrunners decided to cause a “cracking in the ranks”. The Writers Coalition at that time tried to force the issue so they could go back to work. But the WGA would not agree to a deal at that time. If anything, the actions of the Writers Coalition actually EXTENDED the 1988 strike because they convinced management to hold out longer. (For more info on this, read Anne Thompson’s excellent analysis of this at the time in the August 5, 1988 LA WEEKLY)

Further, the supposedly “forced” settlement of the 1988 strike is not the cause of the current action - unless you believe that all the writers have been nursing their rage for almost 20 years without doing anything about it.

Like Mark Evanier’s postings, which she links, she shows a lot of stridency and anger, particularly at those people she disagrees with, even when they sympathize with her cause. Recitations of factually incorrect versions of the history here, coupled with angry defenses of them don’t help matters. The invectives against IA (and other crew) members who have lost their jobs are truly unfortunate and hopefully, she’ll realize that when this is done.

She’s clearly a talented writer, but the stridency is a bit much. It’s the same thing as I encountered with a SAG member last week, who told me she hoped the WGA would begin the new talks with “Well, we’ve got all this support and everyone’s behind us. So you HAVE to give in now.” Thankfully, that kind of rhetoric hasn’t been used at the table - otherwise, the talks would already be over and we’d be back to the public exchanges of vitriol. On the other hand, that could always happen by the end of the day.

Back in 1988, there were multiple times where there was sudden optimism that the strike would be over - and then everything would collapse again. So it’s a good idea to ride out the rumors and wait for something real to happen. When I see a listing on the WGA website that a membership vote has been called to approve a new contract, then I’ll think that progress has been made. Not until then.

Patrick,

Thanks for the riveting account, but you do realize that this picketing has far more similarity to Nike picketing Wal-Mart over the price of their shoes than it does with the other labor movements you cite. Nike makes awesome shoes, you guys make awesome TV and Film. Nike doesn’t cap or tax their massive earnings, you guys don’t cap or tax your massive earnings. Nike covers probably 70% of their employees health care, you guys cover like 30%. Oh wait.

Please stop using these tactics to keep hard working members of other unions (that do not suffer from the income disparity of your collective) from going to work. It is quite clear from history that your organization will never reciprocate the favor to these people (although I believe you would as an individual) and I would be highly suspect of opportunistic promises to the contrary. It would be like Nike all of a sudden refusing to sell Wal-Mart shoes because they don’t like how Wal-Mart treats their janitors after 70 years of not giving a shit. It just doesn’t happen, which is why there will once again be a “no strike” clause in your agreement when this is all over.

Working AD,

You’ve referred, twice, to Mark Evanier showing a great deal of “anger” in his writing about the current labor impasse.

Myself, I think Evanier’s gotta be the most clear-headed observer of this thing I’ve seen online. Of course he’s solidly on the WGA’s side on this (he is a WGA veteran), but having a firm opinion (even if that opinion is that your side is in the right) isn’t the same thing as being “angry.”

Could you please point me to some objectively angry cites of Mark Evanier’s?

Thanks,

Patrick Meighan Culver City, CA

DA Emerson said:

….The producers are pretty sure they’ll be ok without these particular writers, if it comes to it. (They’re probably wrong - the number of professional-grade screenwriters is small not just because of the limited number of paying projects out there - it really is demanding work, and requires a rare set of skills and experience).

On the flipside, there are precious few major studios. Really, it’s only - what? - five media conglomerates with the assets to back major multi-million dollar productions? The studios are the gatekeepers. They have the power, because they control the money. Period….

Sorry for the double post. It didn’t show the first time.

Patrick, it’s possible that you don’t see the level of vitriol in Evanier’s posts because you agree with them. Which is fine - you’re entitled to that opinion, just as he is entitled to his.

To answer your question, here are some quotes:

“And by the way, maybe we oughta stop calling it that and start calling it the Producers’ Forced Strike or something of the sort. Of all the lunkheaded things that have been written and said about this ugly negotiation, none is more lunkheadier than the notion that anyone in power at the Writers Guild wanted to be on strike. In all the WGA picket lines I’ve walked, I’ve never encountered anyone who was “strike-happy” unless you define that in some aberrant, awkward way. (“He preferred going on strike to taking a rotten deal? Why, he must be strike-happy!”)” -That was from this morning

“This is turning out to be a great trip but I do regret not being in Los Angeles during two weeks of what’s turning out to be The Great Writers Strike of ‘07 and Maybe Part of ‘08…From all reports, the big mass picket/demonstration on Hollywood Boulevard the other day was a smashing success, proving that “the town” is behind the WGA strike and — of great importance — that it is widely understood that the disruption of the industry is due to the Producers’ behavior and not to the Writers being unreasonable.” -From Thanksgiving Day (and the reference to the Great Writers Strike is more than a little worrisome)

“In 1988, when the rolled-back WGA contract came up for renewal, the Producers did what one does when someone stupid is on the hook: They tried the same strategy again. They came at us with a series of demands that were not quite as noxious, but still pretty bad. Again, it was “Take this or there’s no contract.” This time, though, we’d learned, and we had better leadership. The strike of that year lasted 22 weeks—one day longer than the strike of ‘60—and while we ended up agreeing to some of the cuts, we cost the Producers a lot more than they cost us.” -From the opinion piece “Strikeout!” at the New Republic on November 19 - while the history is correct, the final note about the end of the strike is telling

“It struck me the other day that that’s one thing that’s different this time. My last four strikes, the Producers had presented us with a unilateral and rotten contract proposal — a few increases in minimums, generally below the cost-of-living rates…a few rollbacks, some of them quite large…and there’s always one little item that we can celebrate as a “gain.” Usually, these offers aren’t even a product of two-way negotiations. Usually, the Producers just refuse to listen to anything we want to say and instead hand us a bad “take it or leave it” offer and to leave it means to go on strike. This time, there have been some talks — apparently fruitless — that have led to no offer. There is no piece of paper that the “Don’t Strike” mob can wave about at the moment and insist is good enough.

As I understand it, the Producers’ position at this moment is as follows: Take the two most important issues — DVDs and Internet delivery — off the table. Drop all your demands in those areas and then (and only then) we’ll sit down with you and make a decent offer that covers the other stuff.

So if someone asks you why the WGA is striking…well, there it is. We haven’t accepted the deal because there is no deal. All there is is a demand that we surrender before they’ll discuss surrender terms. Matter of fact, given the Producers’ long history of “negotiating” by dictating their terms and then walking out of the room, it’s unlikely that they will discuss anything in a give-and-take manner even then.” -From November 10

“I don’t know why the Guild isn’t calling the strike today. Perhaps they feel that given the timing of certain TV shows, it’s less awkward for us not to try and pull the writers off them. Letterman and Leno have tonight’s shows all written. Both are loyal WGA members who apparently will not do their shows, with or without their writing staffs, until the strike is resolved. Why put those guys in the position of having to decide whether or not to perform their “host” duties tonight? Tomorrow night’s Saturday Night Live is probably far enough along that it could go forward without the writers…so its producers and actors who are also WGA members would be placed in an uncomfortable position. These are all shows we can shut down quickly enough. We don’t have to make it difficult for our members there.” -From November 2

This is by no means a complete list, but it certainly gives you a flavor. Evanier is a very smart man, and a talented writer (GROO is one of the all time classic comics). And he has a pretty solid understanding of the history around these issues and the nature of long-term strikes. But there is also a component here of anger at the producers, which is understandable, but not helpful to actually getting to a solution.

To Jon Raymond, I would advise against hoping for a strike through next summer. You assume that SAG will walk out in alliance at that time. You’re not alone in that thought - the SAG member I spoke with last week felt the same thing. I tried to explain to her that people’s perspectives will be very different after a strike that goes that long. Further, you are assuming that WGA will have any leverage after early February - and both sides know that this is not the case. But if you don’t believe me, we’ll just have to see what really happens should the strike proceed that long.

Jon Raymond said:

Writers should want it to go till July and hope it does go till July.

Hmmm… I wonder how many writers (never mind the other people out of work during the strike) had liquid assets amounting to 8 months of expenses on hand on Oct. 31 of this year…?

Working AD,

“This is by no means a complete list, but it certainly gives you a flavor.”

Indeed. And the flavor is anything but vitriol.

I’d suggest that perhaps the reason you see it is because you DON’T agree with what he’s saying.

Which would explain your antipathy towards Kay’s site, and your attraction to this one.

MLBPA (my supposedly-labor-loving friend who refuses to tell me, a brother laborer, who you are, who you work for, or what you do for a living),

The WGA’s income disparity, clearly, is a major issue for you (or so you purport). I don’t know what to tell you, except that, for better or for worse, the Guild is not currently set up to be an income-reapportionment organization, nor has it ever been in its decades-long history.

I don’t know why you choose now, in 2007, to find major fault with this gap in the Guild’s historical mission (and I have to assume that it’s only now that you’re finding the fault, based on the present-tense gerund in your Deadline Hollywood Daily posting handle: “You’re losing me…”). But the suspicious timing of your purportedly recent realization of the long-extant income disparity within the Guild’s membership (in juxtaposition to the Guild’s long-extant strike tactics [i.e. marching and picketing]), in addition to your well-clung-to anonymity, makes me fear you may be a decently-written concern troll.

Be that as it may, I’ll take your argument at face value just this one last time and say that, as receptive as I may personally be to the Guild-wide income-sharing model idea that you favor (or at least purport to favor), I also recognize that now is not the right time to lobby for it in earnest and to sow that sort of division within the membership of the Guild (a Guild membership that, I’m sure you are aware, is amazingly unified—perhaps to an almost-unprecedented level—against the unfair treatment it’s receiving from its ridiculously-profitable employers). ‘Cause, as I’m sure you’re also aware, it’s not as if the studios are currently fighting to channel every spare penny into the pockets of the WGA’s ranks of underemployed and underinsured. They’re fighting to channel every spare penny into the their own (already swollen) coffers.

Perhaps that’s why the vast majority of Guild members—even those underemployed, underinsured members for whom your tears purport to fall—support this strike. And why, every single day, thousands of those very same underemployed, underinsured writers join me (a lucky, well-employed, well-insured writer) on the very picket lines you maintain that the WGA is unworthy of (by virtue of the financial disparity bemoaned of by you but, evidently, not by the underemployed picketers for whom your tears purport to fall).

If income-reapportionment within the WGA is your true, genuine, honest passion, I have two suggestions (actually, three): 1) Become a writer and join the WGA, so as to have an actual voice in this issue. But if you don’t want to do that, may I at least suggest that you: 2) Wait ‘til this strike is settled, at which time the Guild (and its membership) will have relinquished its wartime posture and be better prepared to consider revolutionary internal reforms. And: 3) Focus your lobbying toward those in the Guild (such as our blog host) who are as-yet unpersuaded by your idea, rather than continuing to wail away on those in the Guild (such as myself) who’re already won over to the idea (at least in theory).

Again, though, that’s for tomorrow.

Today, we strike. Today, I join my brother and sister WGA members (of each and every economic class) to protest the unfair treatment we are all—each of us—receiving from the AMPTP. And we will protest that treatment in the manner utilized historically by this union’s membership, and by millions of other union members (of every economic class) throughout history: by picking up signs, forming lines, and voicing our grievances directly to the public.

Patrick Meighan Culver City, CA

stuiec said:

Hmmm… I wonder how many writers (never mind the other people out of work during the strike) had liquid assets amounting to 8 months of expenses on hand on Oct. 31 of this year…?

Part of holding a bluff is not letting the other guy know when you have to fold. Why not do a quick survey of all the writers assets and then you can accurately predict the date producers can expect you to fold? Do you know what a strike is for?

Wow, Working AD, I really don’t see anger or vitriol in those postings at all.

In Josh Olson’s comments, I often see anger and vitriol (sorry, Josh, I usually agree with the point you’re making, but the way you choose to make the point… I gotta call a spade a spade, here).

In some of the responses to Josh’s comments, I see anger.

In Evanier’s posts (at least the ones you point to above) I don’t see anger or vitriol, I just see a firmly-held opinion being expressed.

It appears as though, for you, any opinion voiced on this strike that isn’t, essentially, “Both sides are at fault” counts as anger or vitriol. Maybe we just define those words differently. For example, I strongly disagree with every single word that AMPTP Stooge says when he comments here, and he clearly thinks that only one side (the writers) is at fault in this strike, but I’ve never once read a comment of his and thought, “Wow, he’s full of anger and vitriol.” I think he’s a dink, sure, but I dont think he’s angry.

Maybe we’re just arguing over semantics, here.

Patrick Meighan Culver City, CA

I stopped taking Kay Reindl’s site seriously when, upon bemoaning her failure to set up a pilot this year, announced that almost no writers who weren’t on staff or under development deals sold pilots this year, when in fact I have about five lower- to mid-level friends who did exactly that. Maybe I just have lucky friends; or then again, maybe she’s projecting her own situation more broadly than she should be.

I do kind of sympathize with what she wrote on October 16th though:

So by beating the war drums before it was necessary and for having a tin ear when it comes to negotiating tactics, the WGA fucked me out of making a living this year. Way to go, asshats.

“Hmmm… I wonder how many writers (never mind the other people out of work during the strike) had liquid assets amounting to 8 months of expenses on hand on Oct. 31 of this year…?”

Well, um, me, for one. My wife and I saw this contract deadline coming a couple years back and started squirrelling money away, holding off big purchases, etc. There was nothing secret about that October 31st date.

So, yeah, I can go at least 8 months off savings, can go another 6 months on a loan from the Guild Strike Fund, I can put a few more months on credit cards, I can get another job, my wife can get a job…

I swear to God, my family is, in every way, prepared to strike ‘til the sun burns out if the AMPTP does not give the WGA a decent contract.

Patrick Meighan Culver City, CA

Ooops, didn’t mean to hit ‘Submit’ yet. My point is that someone who writes stuff like that on her own blog, calling the WGA administration ‘asshats’ two weeks before we struck (as was widely anticipated), shouldn’t complain about the much more measured and substantiated criticism on this site or others.

Working AD, I’m not sure I see much vitriol in Mark Evanier’s postings, but I think both he and Kay, among many other writers, are happy to apply generous spin to their opinions, and equally happy to be enraged by spin put out by the AMPTP.

Which is natural, but it gets a little boring to frequently read writers bemoaning misinformation and bias by the media and producers, and then a few sentences later read equally egregious pro-writer misinformation and bias from those same people. I mean, I expect partisanship, but the holier-than-thou attitude I can do without.

Patrick Meighan said:

So, yeah, I can go at least 8 months off savings, can go another 6 months on a loan from the Guild Strike Fund, I can put a few more months on credit cards, I can get another job, my wife can get a job…

You are a wise man. Because the best way to go into a strike is to be prepared for it to go a long, long time. I hope that the majority of your fellow writers are as wise.

I also hope that the members of the other guilds and unions have enough support to remain in solidarity with the WGA if the strike goes on well into the new year. I wish the WGA had formed its Solidarity Fund a long time ago (in fact, they formed it a couple of weeks ago after the publicity of George Clooney’s donation to the Actors Fund). It would have been wise for two reasons: it would have set aside a war chest to help folks in other unions stay in solidarity with the writers, and it would have sent a clear signal to both the AMPTP and the other guilds and unions that the WGA’s strike talk was no bluff — enabling the other unions to help their members prepare for the strike.

Patrick Meighan Author Profile Page said:

I swear to God, my family is, in every way, prepared to strike ‘til the sun burns out if the AMPTP does not give the WGA a decent contract.

Cool.

Jon Raymond said:

Part of holding a bluff is not letting the other guy know when you have to fold. Why not do a quick survey of all the writers assets and then you can accurately predict the date producers can expect you to fold? Do you know what a strike is for?

A strike is not for running a bluff. If a union elects to use the strike weapon, the time for bluffing is past.

A strike is for inflicting pain on the struck companies so that they have to choose between giving the union some or all of what it demands or suffering the economic consequences of losing the labor of the union members. Ideally that pain should become very severe as quickly as possible, so that the struck companies realize that a long strike is not to their benefit and so that they have the maximum incentive to get back to good-faith bargaining as soon as possible.

If you have a different idea of what a strike is for, please share it.

Oh noes! Scab kittehs!

Patrick, I appreciate that you and I see different things in Mark Evanier’s writing. I never said that he wasn’t intelligent or informed. Let me clarify that I see more than a “firmly held point of view” in those postings. I see a kind of righteous anger that reflects the same simmering stuff that other people have shown when they have accused the WGA leadership of having “caved” every time they didn’t go out on strike to prove they meant business. But again, he and you and I are entitled to our respective points of view on this.

I’m glad to know that you’re all set for a long strike. So am I. So are many people I know. But I know a lot of people who aren’t, and who are now quite worried about the prospect of finding another job until next summer. The last times this has happened, many people left the business for good. This happened in ‘73, it happened in ‘80 and it happened in ‘88. My father, who spent over 30 years working in the business as an AD and a UPM, said to me that this kind of thing was one of the regular “winnowing out periods.” Perhaps he’s right. If this strike goes all the way to July because of the intransigence of both sides, we’ll certainly get to find out. And if it goes that long, it will certainly have an effect on the immediate balance sheets of the studios - but the effect on the WGA and the other guilds and locals will be far more devastating.

And I don’t have a problem with someone saying that they believe in their point of view on the strike. My issue is that it is short-sighted and self-serving by BOTH sides to try to blame everything on the other side. That goes for Nick Counter in his interview with TV Week after the strike began, and it goes for the WGA position that this was all forced by the AMPTP. Sorry, but it takes two to tango. My understanding of the current talks is that both sides are owning up to this. Hope everyone posting here and elsewhere can do the same. But is it really necessary to call people names?

And on the topic of anonymity, I suppose you may think me to be a “troll” or a “shill” or whatever other epithet may be out there because I will not publicize my name. And you’re entitled to that opinion too - but that doesn’t mean that it’s correct or appropriate. I’m glad that you and Josh have successful above-the-line careers as in-demand writers with hit TV series and films. Not all of us have that luxury. I have worked as an assistant director, starting as a trainee, since 1994, and during that time, I have found that producers (including the writers) usually don’t want to hear the opinion of the AD, particularly when it differs from theirs. The consequence of this for me has been the warning here or the lost job opportunity there. Most ADs I know work very hard at NOT expressing any opinion to the producers other than their enthusiasm for the current project. You may consider that cowardice - many ADs consider it common sense in this business. If it will establish any credentials for you, I will say that I worked for more than five years on JAG, and that my more recent work has included both the short-lived DRIVE and a thankfully brief stint on BONES, both for Fox. (As a sidenote, I believe the number of writers and ADs that have gone through the revolving door on BONES has gotten rather impressive. When I mentioned working on that show during my interview for the current project, one of the ADs in the room told me they were familiar with many “alumni.”

And to Jon Raymond, I think everyone here is perfectly aware of the purpose of a strike. The point being made to you is that a long strike is of no benefit to anyone - and wishing for one is the sign of a person who has not gone through one before. If it turns out you’re right, and this thing goes through to next summer, we’ll have to see how such opinions change.

Patrick Meighan

i applaud you. Dig your posts also.

We live in Culver City too. Need dinner, come on by…. Actually your funds are gonna outlast mine… :) But what the hell!

scott

Hmmm… I wonder how many writers (never mind the other people out of work during the strike) had liquid assets amounting to 8 months of expenses on hand on Oct. 31 of this year…?

As I wrote a while back, writers are survivors. Unlike most “worker-bees,” writers tend to endure massive amounts of hard knocks before they get to a point where their writing is supporting them.

My post yesterday was to draw a comparison between a football quarterback and the WGA. I don’t know what the rumor was, I only know the person’s response to it. MY point was that the rumor was of no consequence, any more than the rushing defense of an opposing football team is of trifling consequence to a quarterback in the pocket.

If you follow football and you think about it, writers ARE like quarterbacks.

I was so caught up in my analogy that I didn’t realize the damage I may have caused. I meant to have what I wrote be encouraging and to offer a strategic mindset to adopt — I’m sorry if it was perceived otherwise.

Hmmm… I wonder how many writers (never mind the other people out of work during the strike) had liquid assets amounting to 8 months of expenses on hand on Oct. 31 of this year…?

As I wrote a while back, writers are survivors. Unlike most “worker-bees,” writers tend to endure massive amounts of hard knocks before they get to a point where their writing is supporting them.

My post yesterday was to draw a comparison between a football quarterback and the WGA. I don’t know what the rumor was, I only know the person’s response to it. MY point was that the rumor was of no consequence, any more than the rushing defense of an opposing football team is of trifling consequence to a quarterback in the pocket.

If you follow football and you think about it, writers ARE like quarterbacks.

I was so caught up in my analogy that I didn’t realize the damage I may have caused. I meant to have what I wrote be encouraging and to offer a strategic mindset to adopt — I’m sorry if it was perceived otherwise.

Jon:

You scare the crap out of me. Not you personally, but that there are people out there thinking a long strike is a good thing on principal is frightening.

I support the WGA in getting a good contract, but talk like that leads me to believe that there is no such thing as a good contract in your eyes unless the other side lies in ruins.

Because there is a fondness for political comparisons here, it sounds like burning down the village in order to save it. And you, my friend, are the one holding the torch.

ack! double post. sorry.

An interesting bit of news re: consumer packaged goods advertising projected to move online:

http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?id=1005640&src=article1_newsltr

After decades of relying on television and print advertising, US consumer packaged goods (CPG) marketers are finally moving a larger proportion of their marketing budgets online.

This year, eMarketer projects that CPG companies will spend $920 million on all forms of Internet advertising, up 33% over 2006…

Re: Keaton, above—

I wonder how much CPG advertising will decrease on prime time television to offset this increase in online advertising. And also how much of this online advertising will be linked to content that WGA members write, rather than Google, Facebook, etc. This is the kind of article that scares me.

Patrick,

“In Josh Olson’s comments, I often see anger and vitriol (sorry, Josh, I usually agree with the point you’re making, but the way you choose to make the point… I gotta call a spade a spade, here).”

No sweat. I cop to being the king of vitriol. Yet another reason I can say with some authority that Evanier displays none.

AD,

I get your hesitation to use your full name here. Understand that it will always end up costing your posts a few credibility points just by definition. But I do get it - you’re posting on a site in which folks who use their own names risk being libeled or threatened with violence, although that’s just from our humble host and one of his most vociferous toadies.

Yikes. And it seemed that things were goin so well.

Clifford,

I make $120k a year. I am the lowest on the rung here. Many studios already just made cuts (WB being one of them), so I am not sure that there is much fat around here. Maybe they make more. I would probably think that cuts would apply to everything…including development. I think the little guys would actually get hurt more than say the big guns with the huge overall deals. The latter sell because the networks feel comfortable with them (I know…it’s pathetic).

As for script deals, $70k is pretty low. $250k is probably on the high end. The amount of script deals at any studio is simply mind boggling (I’d say maybe 500 float around each year). Definitely a lot of fat to cut and if the studios all kind of agree that this is the way to go, you wont get the kind of “ass covering” that Brian very rightly referred to.

I guess my main point was to say that there should at least be some thought put into what is the net effect. If the WGA gets more on the back end at the cost of money up front, then the WGA probably didn’t do right. In other words, the people who are succesful already get more money…the people who aren’t get less. I don’t know that I am right, but I do know that this is a fair concern (or should be).

Stooge

Josh, I appreciate your understanding re my anonymity. But please understand that I’m not concerned with libel or violence coming from the writers here. I’m a lot more concerned about the other people that read this site. They really can’t do a lot to established writer-producers like yourself, Patrick and even Craig. It’s in fact expected for you to be outspoken in this area. But an Assistant Director? My experience of below the line crew opining in public on major issues is that they are considered “difficult” by producers - and it usually results in someone else being hired instead. If my credibility is lower here as I’m not willing to openly thumb my nose at my current and former employers, I’ll accept that.

On the other hand, Josh, you could threaten me with a history of violence, but I thought it was a really good movie.

Sorry, that was cheap and uncalled for. Couldn’t resist.

Josh, Kay, etc. This crew enjoys whippin the crowd into a freenzy by throwing them some red meat. Like many dictators, their fire and brimstone approach brings them some goodwill from the misinformed writers who share their generally laughable (mis)characterizations. It’s classic demagoguery. Like Josh said, he’s the king of vitriol. He gets a lil kick out of it, I am sure.

Anyway, this is why MLBPA likes to point out the hypocricy of it all. Rich writers asking poor writers to “share” this burden, but then not equally distributing the “rewards.” Rich writers getting up on a soap box railing against the “man” totally forgetting that they are the “man.” Writers couching fights for MORE money to fatten their already fat wallets (remember only in success are their residuals) in terms of classic labor v management struggles a la hotel workers or fast food chain workers. And, probably the most ridiculous, demanding that other guilds join them in their battle, but never really reciprocating. The question I have is…why just rail against the studios? Why do you never look at the big earners? Like MLBPA said, why is it OK for Groening to make 23M, but if Chernin makes it he is a greedy f*ck?

The Kays and Josh’s of this world sound like entitled babies. You chose to be a writer for things other than “I need to make ends meet.” This is why people work at hotels, groccery stores, fast food chains, etc. They do it to feed their families. YOU write for maybe glory…maybe to be rich some day…maybe even some noble idea that you have something important to share. Whatever. But certainly CHOOSING to be a writer doesn’t entitle you to shit.

Writers want more. That’s as American as apple pie. Nothing to be ashamed of. But don’t make anyone else feel ashamed for calling it what it is.

Stooge

Keaton, I don’t think your quarterback analogy was damaging. But when people talk about “holding the line” until July, it does conjure up the image of a line of scrimmage being contested by two opposing teams… it’s not easy for the linemen on either side to bear up indefinitely under that pressure.

You wrote: “As I wrote a while back, writers are survivors. Unlike most ‘worker-bees,’ writers tend to endure massive amounts of hard knocks before they get to a point where their writing is supporting them.”

The same might be true of actors and directors. However, unless I’m mistaken, the folks below the line and the lower ranks of the DGA are much more used to working regularly and earning a wage.

The WGA has certainly committed to a trade union model — even recruiting an executive director from the needle trades — and so its labor relations are based on the idea that writers are “worker bees” of a sort. The WGA’s immediate well-being (and that of its members) depends on prosecuting this strike effectively while currying support and solidarity from the other unions and guilds. I maintain that the ability of the “worker bees” in the other guilds and unions to weather this strike well will have a direct bearing on how effective the strike will be in winning the WGA’s objectives.

And, by the way, I am annonymous so I can be honest and because I would get immediately fired by my employer for the things I’ve discussed here. If I just wanted to take pot shots and have some fun, I’d go onto Kay’s site….but I chose to stay here to get some reasoned discussion.

Stooge

Working AD,

Get it entirely. My comment wasn’t meant to knock you. Just pointing out that at a time like this, you have to work a lot harder to be taken seriously when you post anonymously.

Stooge:

Thanks for the numbers. Re: development budgets, another thing I’ve always wondered is what percentage of a typical studio’s development fund is tied up in one form or another of creative overhead- first look deals, overall deals with non-writing producers, and so forth, and how much is for actual bona fide paying-for-writing. Because, again, in an ideal world, one would hope the fat gets trimmed from the former, not the latter.

Josh:

Oddly, false accusations of libel are considered libelous. I haven’t libelled you in any way, and I’d kindly ask you to stop suggesting that I have.

If I heard a story about you that suggests that your online persona and your real life persona aren’t the same, that’s really a matter of opinion, isn’t it? Learn about libel before tossing around accusations.

For what it’s worth, someone else tells me I got the story right, so I’m gonna stand by it.

I hope this finds you well and happy.

“As I wrote a while back, writers are survivors. Unlike most ‘worker-bees,’ writers tend to endure massive amounts of hard knocks before they get to a point where their writing is supporting them.”

What a JOKE and an insult. The entire writing staff on The Simpsons are silver spoon Ivy Leaguers! Truth be told, there are basically 2 kinds of people that chose to become an “artist.” Really rich folk and really poor folk. The one’s in the middle can’t afford the risk of being a full fledged “artist.” Though, any generalization is bound to be flawed…so take this for what it’s worth.

The truth is…if you couldn’t afford to be a “writer” then you wouldn’t be. It’s not a job that people ENTER to make ends meet. It’s more of a hobby that turns into a career for a select lucky and sometimes talented few.

This really goes to the self righteousness of some of the writers that is just disgusting. I actually had to pay my way through undergrad AND law school…working full time through both. My journey to this point has been long and hard. I am a f*cking survivor. Just unreal.

Stooge

Clifford,

“I do kind of sympathize with what she wrote on October 16th though:

So by beating the war drums before it was necessary and for having a tin ear when it comes to negotiating tactics, the WGA fucked me out of making a living this year. Way to go, asshats.”

Hey, maybe while you’re digging back through her older posts, you could read the current one in which she addresses the subject of union solidarity, and attacks on the leadership. Not an interesting subject on this blog, where personal aggrandizement trumps winning the strike, but unlike some folks, I highly doubt Kay ever intends to run for the board.

The thought process that forces one to denigrate one side in order to lift up their own is not a good one. As seen in the last few posts, it cause enmity. And in this state the finer points get missed.

Although I guess this is what it’s like to fill that 24 hour news cycle. The not knowing is killing me.

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow…

Clifford,

Well, the big overhead deals…it’s hard to appreciate the true cost. For one, you charge off their fees for the various projects they are working on (whether assigned or original).

I think of it this way. In my department, should the strike extend past say February, I would be the first one to go. Mind you, I get paid the least of all my colleagues here and I do just as much work. One reason is because I don’t have a contract, but another is because I don’t have the political heft. You’d think they would keep me on for cheap and fire the bloated, lazy, lifers, but they wont.

Stooge

Josh, I did read that post (I assume you’re referring to the “this is not the time for the troops to criticize the leadership” part), and I just don’t buy the distinction between being critical of leadership during the strike, and being critical of leadership two weeks before a strike that everyone expected might well happen. If the argument is that we shouldn’t criticize during the strike because it might suggest we aren’t united, well, that’s even a bigger issue immediately before a potential strike, when the only way the threat of a strike functions as a negotiation tool is because the union is perceived as being united.

That said, I’m of the belief that criticizing union leadership is legitimate before or during a strike— I just think it’s a weird position to argue that it’s fine and good until 12:01 PM on November 4th, and after that, completely destructive.

Josh,

“Winning the strike”? What does that even mean? No winners, bub. See…that’s the problem.

On this site, everyone realizes that.

And, seriously, if starting a blog in the first place isn’t “personal aggrandizement”, I don’t know what is.

Go back to Fox New…er…I mean Kay’s site. Bubble time.

Stooge

Who else has argued that criticizing leadership during a strike was undermining the troops and their effort to end the battle? That it emboldened the enemy?

I wonder…hmmm…

Stooge

CliffordOdebt wrote:

I do kind of sympathize with what [Kay Reindl] wrote on October 16th though.

It’s pretty clear that Kay is not in the same position as Patrick — far from having 8 months’ worth of savings in the bank, she was “skint” even before the strike began. No wonder she titled her last post before the strike “The Wolf at the Door.”

It’s also pretty clear she has a deep sense of class consciousness. Her resentment against rich fat-cat writers is palpable.

So it’s not surprising that she’s deeply committed to the strike, which is a raw expression of the conflict between the working class and the corporate structures that employ (exploit?) them. And she says it best:

“We NEED to believe in what we’re doing. The time for criticism is gone, and if we get a deal and go back to work, then you can complain and say that Verrone, et al, didn’t represent us well. But right now, I am fully, 100%, behind our leadership.”

The only thing odd about that last bit is, if the WGA gets a good deal and goes back to work, why would anyone complain about the leadership? Wouldn’t their strategy have been validated by success?

“What a JOKE and an insult. The entire writing staff on The Simpsons are silver spoon Ivy Leaguers!”

Mike Scully grew up the son of a travelling salesman. I know that because I currently work with his brother, Brian Scully (a former Simpsons writer), who also grew up the son of a travelling salesman.

No Ivy Leaguer, either of them.

Myself, a Family Guy writer, I grew up in a double-wide, the son of an Air Force serviceman. I went to public school my entire youth, and worked my way through a public university.

I guess this is a long way of saying: shut up about stuff you know nothing about.

Patrick Meighan Culver City, CA

Clifford,

“That said, I’m of the belief that criticizing union leadership is legitimate before or during a strike— I just think it’s a weird position to argue that it’s fine and good until 12:01 PM on November 4th, and after that, completely destructive.”

Sorry you find it a weird position. Happily, the majority of your peers seem able to grasp it.

You’ve definitely found the right place to express bewilderment at the ways and means of the labor movement.

Patrick,

It’s a generalization. I appreciate your exceptions to the rule, but it’s just that.

Anyway, I’m not the one out there saying that writers are the only scrappers in the working world. My reaction was to Keaton’s ridiculous statement.

Plus, aren’t you confirming my statement, which you left out, about writers either coming from incredibly poor or wealthy backgrounds?

But look…I have no clue what I’m talking about. Let me allow Matt Groening to speak for me:

“[Matt] Groening admits that if he hadn’t help create the series he probably wouldn’t have been hired to write for it. “It’s next to impossible to break into the inner circle unless you went to Harvard with one of those eggheads,” he said, later referring to them as “Harvard-grad-brainiac-bastard-eggheads.”“

Yikes. I think you should take your own advice.

Stooge

Brian McCabe said:

Jon:

You scare the crap out of me. Not you personally, but that there are people out there thinking a long strike is a good thing on principal is frightening….

Brian, whether you actually want the strike to go on is besides the point. Of course, no one wants that. What you do want is for everyone to think you do and to think you will ride it out as ever long it takes. Otherwise, why strike. You not serous about. Throw in the towel. Give up. You’ve lost before you started. Haven’t you ever played poker?

But it’s even better if you’re not really bluffing and can ride it out if necessary. It’s not like you’re stuck in Iraq for a year.

Working AD:

….And to Jon Raymond, I think everyone here is perfectly aware of the purpose of a strike. The point being made to you is that a long strike is of no benefit to anyone - and wishing for one is the sign of a person who has not gone through one before. If it turns out you’re right, and this thing goes through to next summer, we’ll have to see how such opinions change.

A strike is something like going to war. I only wish all wars could be this comfy. As hard as it is, there are worse things. Your only physical discomfort is getting splinters or breaking a nail from holding a picket sign. Yeah, you might have to downgrade. That ain’t fun. But being one of the few lucky enough to have your job to begin with should be enough to sacrifice a few months of your career. Otherwise, this strike isn’t a strike. It’s a waste of every one’s time.

I admit i haven’t been through a strike. But I have been through stretches of three to six months of unemployment in a job that pays in the same average range. I know what I’m talking about. I know what the sacrifices are, and what’s it’s like to downgrade. What I don’t know it that after I’ve done all that I get to work in probably the greatest job anyone could ever want to have.

It seems to me a lot is at stake. With the advent of technology and the Internet, and the fact that writers have no secured interest in that market, you have everything to lose if you don’t hold out, as do I.

I think the WGA leadership knows that and that’s why they’re on strike. But some people seem to be missing the big picture and are only concerned about number one. So don’t rag on me because I’m not saying anything different than they are.

stuiec Author said:

A strike is not for running a bluff. If a union elects to use the strike weapon, the time for bluffing is past.

A strike is for inflicting pain on the struck companies so that they have to choose between giving the union some or all of what it demands or suffering the economic consequences of losing the labor of the union members. Ideally that pain should become very severe as quickly as possible, so that the struck companies realize that a long strike is not to their benefit and so that they have the maximum incentive to get back to good-faith bargaining as soon as possible.

If you have a different idea of what a strike is for, please share it.

stuiec,

If you are more concerned about how long the strike will last than about what’s it outcome will be, then you are the one bluffing, and I mean you in the majorative sense. Amazingly not only are you bluffing but you’re telling your opponent that you’re doing so. A loser stance if there ever was one.

If you are not bluffing then you, as Patrick is, would be willing to hold out as long as it takes, and there would be no discussion about when it will end or your desire for such. Of course everyone wants it to end soon. But there’s no need to discuss that. It’s understood. Discussing it just weakens the cause and makes you the victim instead of the aggressor. It’s a tactic of the other side. Are you on the other side? If not, they should be paying you for your time.

Dear Stooge:

I hadn’t done a formal study on the subject of writers — I just happen to know a LOT of writers and wouldn’t characterize any of them as having a silver spoon in their mouth. Plenty of them came from middle class and/or blue collar backgrounds too, so your statement that one only becomes a writer if they are from a very rich or very poor background is inaccurate. Most of them did come from families with an appreciation of the arts, but that wasn’t so uncommon (until the last couple decades, when public schools in America lost funding for what some considered “non-essentials”).

Of the writers I know, even the ones with prestigious degrees from top universities got there through their own sheer diligence and tenacity and/or moved on to become professional writers even as their family and friends gave them little support and admonished them to “find a real job.”

More importantly, your perception of writing as an occupation of leisure and ease is seriously off. The fact that you think otherwise really speaks to how little you know about it. I don’t mean that as a flame, most people think they could write if they put their mind to it…yet the hard part IS putting your mind to it and turning all those thoughts that are crystal clear and ringing like a bell in your head into some kind of sense on the page (because they rarely fall that way).

Even if a writer did come from the lap of luxury, to be a good writer means confronting the demons in your head on a level most other professions don’t demand. So, I would still submit that writers are survivors — even the ones that grew up with a silver spoon in their mouth.

And Stooge, this post is entirely my own opinion and probably quite subjective. You are welcome to disagree with it and point out where I am wrong — but attacking my character is really out of line. I appreciate that you pulled yourself up by the bootstraps and got through law school — these are admirable accomplishments. However, please do not make the assumption that everyone else had it easier than you. I certainly did not.

= = = = = =

Stueic - I am not advocating for a long strike, by any means. Just as long as it takes.

Jon, it does no good to run a bluff when the other side has a damn good idea of what cards you hold. (And by the way, sometimes it makes more sense to feign weakness than to exaggerate your strength — you must not be much of a poker player if all of your bluffs run one way.) But that’s beside the point.

The objective here isn’t to bluff or buffalo the other side into folding — you’re deluded if you think they’re ever going to out-and-out fold — but rather to show them that negotiating in good faith is cheaper in the long run for them than forcing the strike to drag on.

Jon Raymond, the issue that I and others here have tried to point out to you is not a concern about when the strike will end. I am completely aware that the WGA is prepared to strike until it gets a fair offer from the AMPTP. That isn’t the issue.

I appreciate that you have admitted your inexperience with these matters. Be aware that going through a stretch of unemployment is quite common in this business – you’re not the only one to go through that. I’ve gone through two of them in my career, and in one of them, I had to step downward in order to keep the career alive. But a long strike is another matter, and the two should not be confused. During a long strike, some people will be able to weather it and move onward once it ends. But many others will not – and they’ll either have to switch careers (as many have done in the past), or they’ll face financial ruin as they lose their homes and families while they wait for a contract to be achieved. And these aren’t the people that Kay Reindl castigates for having fancy homes or kids in private school. These are people that work on the crew who effectively live paycheck to paycheck. In many cases, they bought homes during the recent housing bubble, which no longer hold the value they had a year ago. So you can imagine what extended unemployment does to that scenario.

You’re correct that there are people who are now publicly worried about that kind of thing happening, and you’re correct that this is only a sidebar of the issues that the WGA is negotiating and fighting for.

But you’re not being “ragged” on for recognizing the WGA’s concerns, which also apply to the imminent DGA and SAG negotiations. You are being asked to correct comments that you have made, such as “The writers really have all the power. There are no studios without writers. Producers are simply middlemen. Talent brokers. This stuff about negotiating as if both sides are equals is propaganda.” Another comment that has alarmed average people: “If it did go till July the alliance with SAG would take hold and the producers, though necessary as they may be, would not be so quick to dismiss the real talent. Writers should want it to go till July and hope it does go till July. As you say, the talent is rare. Business peole are not.”

Those comments are illustrative of youthful enthusiasm, but they don’t reflect the realities that we all deal with here. At best, they just reflect the passion of the early days of a strike. At worst, they are inflammatory and incorrect. A producer who can actually put a project together from beginning to end is not as common as you may think. It’s not a good idea for either side to engage in ad hominem dismissals of the other side’s contributions. And to be fair, I find it reprehensible when anyone tries to say that they don’t need writers to make a movie or a TV show. That’s beyond silly, and it’s as insulting to the writers as the AMPTP’s initial offer was.

What will get us all past the current impasse is what I hope is the logical reasoning going on behind closed doors this week. Impassioned cries to break the companies or ignore the guilds will not do anything but anger either side. The best thing for everyone is not to worry about who “wins” a strike, but rather to see that a fair deal for everyone winds up on the table. And you should know that the action of striking is the last resort to achieve that goal. It isn’t a war, and it isn’t a game of poker or even a game of chess, and while there may be some allusions to be made, it’s a symptom of the failure of a labor negotiation that must be concluded with a contract. The AMPTP are not monsters, nor are they out to do anything like break the guilds. If they were, like some major coal and industrial companies were in the 80’s, they wouldn’t be sitting down to discuss anything now. The situation is certainly serious, but not unsolvable. And I have confidence that a solution will be found. If not now, then before next summer. I would hope that you would have the same belief.

If I see one more person angrily demand to know which “side” another person is on because they disagree with something they’ve written, I think I’m gonna fucking puke.

Could we find a new thought to think? Just one? For a little while? Like, for practice? ‘Cause this is getting pathetic.

It may astonish a few of you to learn that it’s possible for someone to support the same cause you do, yet disagree on how it might best be achieved. It may astonish more of you to learn that it’s possible for someone not to support the same cause you do, yet still be a basically good and decent person. It’s a big world. Grow up and live in it.

And for the record, I’m saying this as someone who hasn’t been criticizing our leadership during the strike, not because I think it would be some sort of betrayal to do so, but because I’ve seen virtually nothing to criticize. Their October surprise was timed perfectly, they’ve run rings around the AMPTP in tactical terms ever since then, and I think they’re going to bring a deal home — probably not the all-perfect deal of our happiest daydreams, but a far better one than we would have gotten in a million years of rolling over and playing nice with management. And I think that’s going to happen regardless of what anyone writes in the comments page of a blog, or even on the front page of a blog, about our union, its leadership, its members, or anything else.

People who feel the need to shout down opposing viewpoints rarely do so because they believe that their cause is strong. Our cause is. Dammit. And I so desperately wish people would stop implying, through all their fearful, don’t-you-dare-say-a-word-unless-it’s-to-agree-with-me behavior, that it isn’t.

Shit, talk about making us look weak…

Josh Olson wrote:

Clifford, “That said, I’m of the belief that criticizing union leadership is legitimate before or during a strike— I just think it’s a weird position to argue that it’s fine and good until 12:01 PM on November 4th, and after that, completely destructive.” Sorry you find it a weird position. Happily, the majority of your peers seem able to grasp it. Clifford, “That said, I’m of the belief that criticizing union leadership is legitimate before or during a strike— I just think it’s a weird position to argue that it’s fine and good until 12:01 PM on November 4th, and after that, completely destructive.” Sorry you find it a weird position. Happily, the majority of your peers seem able to grasp it. You’ve definitely found the right place to express bewilderment at the ways and means of the labor movement.

I’m not a labor movement expert, but I did take a class on the political history of American labor unions (just to muddy the waters of this thread, it was at a silver-spoon Ivy League college, but I had financial aid up the wazoo, and spent a lot of time trying to help unionize the school’s clerical workers). And there’s actually a long history of internal criticism within unions, even, yes, during strikes. There’s also, of course, a long history of union members railing against other union members for being critical during a strike.

Though lots of strikes are lost because of scabbing and/or bad leadership, I don’t know of any strike being lost because of internal criticism, and I don’t know why this one would be any different.

“Though lots of strikes are lost because of scabbing and/or bad leadership, I don’t know of any strike being lost because of internal criticism, and I don’t know why this one would be any different.”

Christ almighty, why is this still being discussed?!

Is the concept that publically criticizing union leadership during a strike simply DOES NOT HELP THE CAUSE really that alien and unfathomable to some of you?

REALLY???

ANY public commentary - especially from fairly prominent members of the WGA (like, say, former members of the board with seven figure quotes and blockbusters on their resume) - COULD POTENTIALLY be utilized by the AMPTP as negative publicity against the WGA leadership and thus the waging strike.

So why take the risk?

And don’t give me this “Craig’s just some chap with a blog” bull— err…ocks. This blog has gotten media attention before. Craig is not even able to support the strike actively by walking the picket lines (and let it be noted that I, like others, do not condemn him for finishing his movie!). BUT! The least he could do is not throw monkey wrenches at the WGA strike apparatus.

Is that really too much to ask?

CliffordOdebt wrote:

Though lots of strikes are lost because of scabbing and/or bad leadership, I don’t know of any strike being lost because of internal criticism, and I don’t know why this one would be any different.

During a strike, as during any type of confrontation between groups, it’s important to present a united front to the other side. In this situation, for example, the greater the solidarity that the WGA can earn from fellow guilds and unions, the more leverage it has in its negotiations.

Internal criticism ought to be set aside for the duration of the strike, or at worst until something about the situation makes the position of the leadership clearly untenable.

But what is sometimes worse than internal criticism directed at the leadership is criticism of the critics. If an us-vs.-them mentality toward the other side of the dispute isn’t conducive to negotiations and compromise, an us-vs.-them mentality toward other members of the same side is potentially fatal. It leads to factionalism and schism, and it diverts attention from the confrontation with the adversary to confrontation with the erstwhile ally. Witch-hunts, purity crusades, crushing dissent — all are cures worse than the disease.

Internal criticism should be discouraged by reminding dissenters of the need for solidarity, for the opportunity to air dissent after the confrontation is over and the danger is past, by focusing on aspects of the criticism that are technical and tactical rather than strategic or personality-driven. It should not be quashed, silenced, exorcised or ostracized, because each of those measures encourages the dissenters to harden into schismatic factions, and soon the resources that should be directed into confronting the adversary instead are diverted into trying to hold the factions together — or, worse, into fighting between factions, putting the external war on hold until the internal battles are decided.

So Kay Reindl is right in her latest blog post to say, “Whether you agree with their decision or not, this is not the time for the troops to criticize the leadership.”

And she’s completely wrong in her latest blog post to say, “I want them to go into the negotiations believing that we’re behind them, that we support them. Those of you who think this is crap need to broaden your focus past your fancy house and your kids’ nifty private schools.” The proper response to criticism and dissent is not to label the critics and dissenters as fat cats, traitors, or other pejoratives. The proper response is to remind them of the need for solidarity in the here and now, and to assure them of the opportunity to air their criticism and dissent at the proper time in the future.

stuiec -

so what about those who criticize the critics of critics?

What are they, witch hunter slayers?

“so what about those who criticize the critics of critics? What are they, witch hunter slayers?”

On the plus side, we get to wear bad-ass trenchcoats and the occasional floppy-brimmed hat, we’re accompanied everywhere we go by an endlessly repeating techno-metal soundtrack, and our fight-ending “finishing moves” are rendered in highly stylized slow motion, so you can tell we mean business.

Hello Craig, I’m sorry to leave this comment here, but I couldn’t find your email address.

Basically, I’m a second year student journalist at the University College for the Creative Arts in Surrey, UK, and I’m writing an article about the WGA strikes for my uni newspaper. I’ve been keeping up with some other blogs too, and I do agree with the writers. My article is going to be about how the strike will affect TV/Film not only in the short-term, but also the long-term, and also the affect it’ll have on other countries. So would it be possible conduct a short email interview or get a few quotes from you?

If you have any time at all, please feel free to contact me at apfoggy@yahoo.co.uk (or fogg8@hotmail.co.uk). Thank you, and I hope to be hearing from you in the future.

Anna

Johnny,

“ANY public commentary - especially from fairly prominent members of the WGA (like, say, former members of the board with seven figure quotes and blockbusters on their resume) - COULD POTENTIALLY be utilized by the AMPTP as negative publicity against the WGA leadership and thus the waging strike.”

Crazy talk. You must have fallen off your meds.

Johnny Hartman wrote:

Is the concept that publically criticizing union leadership during a strike simply DOES NOT HELP THE CAUSE really that alien and unfathomable to some of you?

Hypothetical question: If, in October 16, while both sides are in intense negotiations and it’s important for the WGA to have a credible strike threat, if someone writes in public blog:

“So by beating the war drums before it was necessary and for having a tin ear when it comes to negotiating tactics, the WGA fucked me out of making a living this year. Way to go, asshats.

Isn’t that potentially also “not helping the cause”? Would you condemn that speech as well?

On the topic of Ivy League writers…

I wholeheartedly second Keaton’s post. I would also add — in case this applies to Stooge or anyone else — that there is an unfortunate tendency to deduce a silver-spoon childhood simply from the name of someone’s alma mater. I’m not saying there aren’t a handful of rich kids who will always come up through the system, but all the Ivies have tremendous assistance programs. I went to Princeton, and I promise you — plenty of Princeton grads will forever be categorized in the cush category despite having not grown up that way. Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of my classmates (even many of the athletes and legacies) got to Princeton, financial means or no, by working their tail off and never cutting themselves a break. It just so happens that’s a quality that serves people well who are trying to break through the teeming, steaming masses scratching at the gates of Hollywood. Perhaps there are more survivors than you think.

I’ll also say this: I commend you, Stooge, for working full-time to put yourself through law school. Your entire story is admirable. I myself went through law school wholly on loans (my plan to become a poor and struggling writer having been thoroughly steamrolled by the concerted effort of every last person around me — another thing not uncommon to Ivy League graduates)… and paid off every last cent of those six figures, by myself, before I could even contemplate the luxury of trying to do what I’d wanted to do all along. Thank God the tenacity and grit were still there, because at that point, I didn’t have any more time to waste.

In a previous post, Johnny Hartmann said:

Is the concept that publically criticizing union leadership during a strike simply DOES NOT HELP THE CAUSE really that alien and unfathomable to some of you?

REALLY???

ANY public commentary - especially from fairly prominent members of the WGA (like, say, former members of the board with seven figure quotes and blockbusters on their resume) - COULD POTENTIALLY be utilized by the AMPTP as negative publicity against the WGA leadership and thus the waging strike.

Hmm. I’m going to remember this the next time someone says that we shouldn’t speak out against a war our country is actively engaged in. Might give aid and comfort to the enemy to see that people question their leadership.

Oh, what? It’s not the same thing. Yeah, it is.

Unless you are a Republican saying this, you are a hypocrite.

Oh, and while I’m still in pre-morning-coffee cranky mode, the people who are criticizing WGA for being publicly critical during the strike often use the analogy of a war: that once a war is declared, soldiers aren’t supposed to publicly criticize their leaders or the war strategy. (I think Kay used this analogy as have lots of others.)

That’s actually false, at least in the USA. Soldiers can engage in any political speech they want during wartime, as long as they don’t wear their uniform (in a literal sense) while they do it, or divulge confidential information.

For instance, do a quick google search for the NYT op-ed piece a bunch of NCOs in Iraq wrote a few months ago completely excoriating the war strategy. (Sadly, one of the authors was killed a few weeks after the piece ran, but that’s way off-topic.)

I find it interesting that Nikki Finke is now trying to stir up the rumor mill again. (And at the same time she is denying that she fell for the more optimistic view of the negotiations) The intent of her piece is fairly clear, no matter how coy she words it. I personally wish she would submit something when she has something of substance to contribute - except of course that would probably eliminate most of her blog.

Quill Me Now:

What year?

I’m ‘92.

Clifford -

“asshats”

Sounds like Kay - is it?

Whatever, I don’t think posting that comment helps the cause, no. Your point?

And FYI, I too “lost jobs” - well, who knows what would have transpired, but a couple projects fell through the moment the preemptive strike authorization hit. And I’m not even WGA.

But I don’t blame the guild because I support the cause which one day will get me my well deserved internet residuals and I understand there would be collateral damage. Yeah, it would have been peachy if the WGA leadership could’ve negotiated their demands without a strike. But it’s not a perfect world.

Dissent -

Come ooon…

Analogies only go so far. And while it’s fun to paragon any scenario with war, the undisputable fact is that a labor union strike is not a military campaign.

And a guild leadership that uses tough tactics in negotiations with an incredibly powerful entity that wants to deny very basic benefits is certainly not to be equated with a megalomaniac who wastes billions of dollars and thousands of lives to secure oil reserves and sell construction contracts to his bohemian grove pals.

Peace out.

Craig:

‘91. Philosophy (initially Romance Languages). We didn’t know each other, which is too bad.

My point was dumb (shocker). I shouldn’t have responded to Keaton’s silly point. Ivy leaguers aren’t all spoiled brats, yada yada. The point is everyone slogs.

Stooge

My point was dumb (shocker). I shouldn’t have responded to Keaton’s silly point. Ivy leaguers aren’t all spoiled brats, yada yada. The point is everyone slogs.

Stooge

You know I love ya, Stooge.

The weird thing is there has been more talk about the quality of dissent as opposed to actually dissenting.

The whole thread is the occassional story from Patrick about what happens on the line (which I enjoy), Stooge saying the AMPTP isn’t evil (which they’re not), Stooge saying writers have silver spoons they are born with (which is untrue), a youthful Jon who thinks you can bluff after you’ve put your cards on the table and lots and lots of talk over whether posting hurts the strike.

But I haven’t really seen a post saying things are going in the wrong direction. I haven’t seen anything that questions the resolve of the WGA to stick it out.

I don’t know how many of you have seen the movie “Tombstone.” But there is a scene right before the shoot out at the OK Corral. The Earps and Holiday have their hands on their holstered pistols as does the Clanton faction. Tension is high. Wyatt tries to talk everyone down. Holiday winks at Billy. Billy gets insulted. And Wyatt sees this is going to happen “Oh, shit.”

That’s how I feel. I’m waiting to see if we enter into the “oh, shit” phase.

Stu,

Like you said, the AMPTP knows what cards the WGA is holding. Like, Clifford, they understand labor dynamics and precedent. So the writers can try and write this script how they want, but no one is fooled. Of course there is dissention amongst a very diverse group of people like the WGA (disparate incomes, backgrounds, politics, etc). And they sure as hell know that there is dissention between the various guilds. It’s not like, as Clifford keeps pointing out, that all the disputes and complaints that happened say 2 weeks prior to the strike have just dissolved into thin air. So, fine, put on the show, but we don’t have to buy into the fiction.

I would actually argue that the dissent, since we all know it exists anyway, is helpful to the cause. It goes without saying that you will have your demagogues like Josh and Kay, so you need to counterbalance that with some reason. Otherwise, you get a group of writers with unrealistic expectations and who are completely misinformed as to their own position (strengths and weaknesses) and as to their opponent’s position. If the idea is to keep this strike as short as possible (yet still getting what you want), then I think it is a huge help to have the moderates out in public demanding fairness and accuracy as opposed to jingoism and fascism.

To sum up: if everyone knows dissent exists, then it can do no harm…and possibly it can do good, so what’s the big f’ing deal.

Stooge

Brian,

Great example. You are right. Keaton winks at me and I start shooting a bunch of BS. Pathetic.

It’s unfortunate we keep getting sidetracked by arguing whether it’s ok to break with the party line. I think that basically the hardliners don’t want to debate the merits. You don’t see Josh coming here and breaking down the residual system like Ted does or put this labor battle in the context of other labor battles like Clifford or MLBPA. Instead he just comes on here and cries “you dissented…you are evil.” So we keep fighting that fight.

But other than the occasional Josh, most people here I think agree with a moderate approach. One that realizes both sides have real issues (as opposed to issues derived solely from greed and evil) and one that doesn’t see this as a war at all.

Stooge

Johnny Hartmann wrote:

Clifford - “asshats” Sounds like Kay - is it? Whatever, I don’t think posting that comment helps the cause, no. Your point?

Yeah, it’s Kay. And that’s my point— that it’s inconsistent to be saying that dissent is damaging now, but to have voiced lots of dissent during the heat of pre-strike negotiations. Whatever, this is kind of a minor sidebar issue, not a big deal, but I’m explaining why I find her calls for WGA members to keep their mouth shut now to be unpersuasive and inconsistent with her own behavior.

I think you either have to argue that dissent is okay at any point, or that dissent should stop when negotiations begin, not when a strike begins. I take the former position, and respect the latter position. But her position is in the middle and doesn’t make sense to me.

Way. Way, WAY off topic. Doubt he’s in the WGA but maybe some will enjoy. http://www.word-detective.com/

Dear Word Detective: Some time ago I was reading My Man Jeeves by P.G. Wodehouse, a treasure trove of obscure and quaint idioms and slang terms as I’m sure you know. In the chapter “The Unbidden Guest,” Bertie describes an unannounced visitor as “measuring about 6 feet from the O.P. to the prompt side.” While it’s clear from the rest of the paragraph that she is, shall we say, a full-figured woman, what precisely are the “O.P.” and “the prompt side”? — Andrew Buckland.

Thanks for a great question. The stories of P.G. Wodehouse are indeed a rich source of obscure and nearly obsolete words and expressions, as well as being enormous fun to read in their own right. I was reluctant for many years to venture into the world of, as I thought at the time, “some rich twit and his butler.” But after a friend convinced me to take the plunge, I didn’t come up for air until I had read a hefty chunk of what Wodehouse wrote (and we’re talking about a man who wrote more than ninety books). I left off reading Wodehouse about fifteen years ago, but it may be time to start again. There certainly isn’t anything on TV.

Not to make my job sound easier than it is, but something quite serendipitous happened when I began to research this question. I already had a strong hunch about what Wodehouse meant by “from the O.P. to the prompt side,” but on a whim I plugged the whole phrase into the full-text search engine of the Oxford English Dictionary. Lo and behold, there was the same quotation from My Man Jeeves listed as a citation for the abbreviation “O.P.” That, kiddies, is what we call “on a silver platter.”

Both “prompt side” and the abbreviation “O.P.” come from the theatrical stage. Especially in amateur productions, even the best actors are apt to forget a line occasionally, and the task of rescuing the moment by “prompting,” giving visual or audible clues, falls to the “prompter” (or sometimes the stage manager) standing offstage in the wings. Traditionally, the prompting is done from the left side of the stage (as one faces the audience), also known as “stage left.” The abbreviation “O.P.” stands for “opposite prompt,” meaning the other side of the stage, i.e., “stage right.” Both terms date back at least to the 18th century.

Thus, when Wodehouse described his character, Lady Malvern, as “measuring about six feet from the O.P. to the Prompt Side,” he was leavening an otherwise bland exaggeration with the sort of clever turn of phrase that makes his stories so addictive.

I find it interesting that everyone is bitching about what is frankly fairly trivial (how much dissent is okay — I mean, please, this is pathetic), while Nikki Finke is blabbing away with leaks from both sides about the supposedly blacked-out negotiations. Working AD referred to it, but apparently Nikki’s a sacred cow that no one wants to criticize.

Does anyone else think her breathless reporting of inflammatory quotes and “insider” impressions at this point is counterproductive? Is anyone else disappointed that there are apparently people high up in both the WGA and AMPTP negotiations who are happy to put out spin and snarky comments despite agreeing to a strict press black out?

Yes, Nikki is crazy and damaging. I think it was AMPTP Stooge who said on another thread that she clearly wants to turn this into her Anderson Cooper / Katrina moment. I was actually kind of upset when I found out my agent is one of her sources.

Clifford -

I wasn’t arguing pro Kay. You brought her into this, not me. Why, is beyond me. I guess Schopenhauer’s 29th applies…

Having said that, I could see how criticizing BEFORE a strike - in an effort to avert the strike - is acceptable.

Now, what’s your stance on posting not only criticism, but also rumors and false information DURING a strike?

You down with that?

Nikki Finke is not in the WGA. And her coverage is pro writers. Interesting that some here seem to have a problem with that..

Johnny, actually, if you read the thread from the beginning, you’ll see that when this topic begain, I was responding to a post someone else wrote about Kay, and then I guess you responded to my response, so that’s why we’re talking about it, because that was what the topic was, before you joined in.

As far as posting rumors and false information, I think it’s bad, which is why I was critical of Craig when he (in my view) overreacted to the get-out-the-SAV-vote campaign, and when he posted the misinformation about the WB gates.

Patrick,

Maybe it’s because I have only worked in entertainment for the past 10 years, but it was only in the past few weeks that I learned that the WGA stands with its brothers and sisters of the labor movement. I don’t really remember the WGA ever seriously asking for things like a conscience clause in its previous contracts, nor did I hear much outcry for helping the middle and lower class members when this proposal was being crafted months ago. These seem to be developments of the past few weeks, where I now see writers rallying many legitimate working class unions to their aid and put many below the line unions in uncomfortable positions to increase the WGA’s leverage with no chance of reciprocation. Wait, who’s timing is suspect here?

You argue this isn’t the time to bring up such topics. I argue that you don’t have a right to use these tactics until you get your own organization on firmer moral ground, so I am asking you to stop. I don’t have much hope for the rest of the WGA, but people like you and David Young should know better. The idea that these other unions will help the WGA now and then the WGA will get their back next time is laughable. I’ve seen a lot of signs asking for more money, but haven’t seen any signs yet asking for the conscience clause. Plus, as I have mentioned before, I think having highly visible organizations like the WGA and SAG use these tactics keeps the American public from better understanding the real issues underlying the labor movement.

Look, I wish you could change the WGA’s mind about at least paying for more of the membership’s health care, but understand if you can’t (roll call anyone? Josh? Ted?). I agree that the AMPTP isn’t going to take the lead, but other than government regulation, I am not sure who else other than the WGA could make this happen. I am also not sure when there would be a better opportunity to point this out to the membership at large than the current moment; as I mentioned above, I have never seen the WGA previously take such an interest in the causes typically associated with the broader labor movement and realize that this will probably evaporate as soon as they all go back to working.

On a personal note, I prefer to stay anonymous because I find that in these types of intellectual discussions, often the other party will attempt to disparage the differing opinion with a personal attack instead of merely focusing on the argument. Often this has to do with reducing the cognitive dissonance when they feel like they are “losing” the argument (whether they actually are or not). Also, I find that being anonymous allows me to change my mind more easily, as many studies on human bias have shown that we all tend to get entrenched in our own opinions. I certainly need all the help I can get.

I will never be a member of the WGA because I do not have that amazing, unique skill that so many of you have. I think that the fact an organization made up of such typically smart, empathetic individuals is capable of this type of callous exploitation is especially galling. However, the only real proof I can give you that I am not an AMPTP troll would be for you to take a step back and see if you could see yourself writing similar things as me if you also weren’t a member. I bet you could.

I don’t think Nikki is ‘pro-writer’ per se— I think she’s pro-Nikki. And a big motif of all her work over the decade or so she’s been covering Hollywood is that moguls are stupid, etc. So she tends to amplify anything that plays into her Grand Theme and play down everything that doesn’t. So my main beef is that she’s a mediocre journalist who has managed to wedge herself into a position of influence on this issue. Which you can’t really blame her for, because there was a real vacuum in terms of coverage. I just think it’s an unfortunate situation.

Nikki is what she is. I never say don’t read this or that…I just think that anyone using anonymous sources is suspect. Especially someone who is such a shameless self promoter (seriously every other sentance is “as I reported” or “I told you so”). Nikki is basically no better than any commentor on this site (and probably worse).

Mostly I think she is pandering to the writers. Her latest article is very sad in that she is clearly stirring the pot and the only benefit that article can serve is to further polarize the 2 sides. She knows people are hungry for info and she wants to stay relevant so she makes shit up. To think that the AMPTP is actually leaking information about these negotiations is a joke since all of the “sources” she “quotes” are talking about the AMPTP doing “bad” things.

If anyone is leaking information, they ARE evil. Give peace a chance, baby.

Stooge

Kevin,

Someone left a comment on her blog asking her if she considers herself a gossip columnist or a journalist. On Nov 26th she said:

“MONDAY PM EXCLUSIVE REPORT: Today’s Talks Productive: “Reasonableness Ruled The Day”

As the WGA strike begins its 4th week, I’ve been told positive news about today’s resumption of contract talks between the writers and the producers. So positive, in fact, that I’m almost fearful to post it. But here goes: a very reliable source tells me that there appears to be a deal seemingly in place between both sides.”

And today she reports:

“….Look, I’m going to wait until I receive a report about Wednesday’s talks before I begin passing judgment on what’s happening, or not happening, here. But I must say that Day #2 certainly puts a damper on all those wishful-thinking rumors sweeping Hollywood and beyond — but not here at DHD — that the strike would be settled by December 8th.”

How does she exclude her own words from “ALL THOSE WISHFUL-THINKING-RUMORS….” ???? Isn’t that a contradiction or am I missing something?

Brian, I’d use the movie reference Duck Soup. I am just hoping no one at the bargaining table uses the word “upstart,” because, you know, that means war.

Well said, MLBPA. I (we?) just want a fair fight.

Stooge

Stooge -

“To sum up: if everyone knows dissent exists, then it can do no harm…and possibly it can do good, so what’s the big f’ing deal.”

Try this for kicks…

Apply the following moral barometer:

What if everbody did it?

What if every WGA writer started a blog, posting rumors, dissent and disinformation at his or her heart’s content. Chaos and confussion would destablize the union and possibly dampen the strike effort. That’s why most writers don’t engage in such activity.

It’s also why most of us don’t throw burger wrappers out the car window…

It’s called common sense.

Or basic human decency.

Scott,

You are right…but Nikki really isn’t worth the time. It’s unfortunate there is such a vacuum, like Clifford said, and she’s the one that fills it.

The fact is that it took a long time from when the AMPTP and WGA similarly sat down in ‘88 to reach an accord. It will take time and there will be good days and bad days. I think daily reports are kind of a waste of time.

Stooge

Johnny:

If everyone did it, wouldn’t that be indicative of a problem?

Stuiec:

What if someone uses the words “start up?”

Johnny,

What’s the difference between commenting on a blog and a bunch of people talking on the picket line? Should I assume that no one talks about the strike?

I also don’t see what kind of dissent you are voicing by throwing a burger wrapper out of your window. Some (is it even most?) people don’t do it because it’s (a) illegal; and (b) dickish.

I don’t get the common sense angle? My point is that if you weren’t in lock step before the strike, you wont be during and after. That seems like common sense to me. It’s forced…It’s a fiction. Now my point has always been that you would all be more unified if you were fighting over say having health care at all. Fighting for more money for some (those receiving internet residuals…and probably more specifically residuals from television projects) just isn’t all that unifying of a cause.

As for human decency? I really don’t get that one either. I think it’s very decent to respect someone’s fair and reasonable opinion. Even if it isn’t the one you hold.

Stooge

CliffordOdebt wrote:

So my main beef is that she’s a mediocre journalist who has managed to wedge herself into a position of influence on this issue. Which you can’t really blame her for, because there was a real vacuum in terms of coverage.

All the way at the top of the comments on this thread — second comment, by yours truly — is:

People hate uncertainty and people have a neurobiological compulsion to find an orderly pattern in chaos. That’s one reason rumors can spontaneously generate in a situation like this.

Imagine a world in which you truly did not know for certain that the sun was going to rise tomorrow morning. Human beings don’t function well in an environment of basic uncertainty, and since employment deals with (as Kay refers to it) the lower levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs — food, shelter, security — uncertainty about employment is one of the biggest psychological vacuums a person can experience. Nature abhors a vacuum, and the mind struggles to fill the void by creating conjecture and latching on to rumor (if actual fact is not available).

Nikki Finke knows that nature abhors a vacuum, and she provides something to fill it. Whether that something has objective factual value is impossible to judge, since you can’t fact-check her sources. And if the stuff she provides doesn’t match with the more optimistic conjecture one’s mind has already generated, it’s a natural reaction to direct anger at her for providing unfounded rumor that bursts one’s optimism.

From what I hear, Zen masters and U.S. Marines are the people best equipped to deal with absolute uncertainty: Zen masters, because they have learned to accept whatever fate they are dealt with complete equanimity, and U.S. Marines, because they train and war-game rigorously so that they can react appropriately in whatever situation arises, even ones in which victory or mere survival are impossible. For the rest of us, uncertainty is the most ruthless bitch mistress of all.

Clifford -

I’m aware of the greater context but was responding to a general comment of yours in regards to internal criticism hurting a strike that made no mention of Kay or her site.

See, these things often get muddled because the most basic principles are being questioned and debated… and all of a sudden you find yourself arguing why children should not be beast-fucked by their parents.

Anyway, seems you’re a reasonable guy… grab a beer and enjoy the game.

Stooge -

You want me to tie your laces while I’m at it?

As you said, you don’t get it.

Let’s leave it at that.

“all of a sudden you find yourself arguing why children should not be beast-fucked by their parents”

…or equating the concept of the market place of ideas to incest, pedophilia and rape.

You think your hyperbole is helping or hurting your cause?

I guess that’s your version of human decency.

Stooge

Johnny,

I can’t even get an explanation of the “Great Burger Wrapper Revolution?”

Talk about a tease.

Stooge

Johnny, my issue with Nikki and what she’s reporting today isn’t that her coverage is “pro writers” (though I think Stooge is more correct that she is pandering to the writers to serve her anti-corporate, anti-mogul agenda).

My issue is two-fold: first, she’s stirring the pot simply to stir the pot, in a way that’s counter productive (and which makes the many writers who are constantly blowing smoke up her butt look like dopes). And second, key negotiators on both sides are undermining the negotiations by feeding pseudo-information and spin, which makes it questionable that either side is sincere in the current process.

Brian, it depends. For example:

Suppose Nick Counter is on a break from the bargaining session and is in the hotel hallway on his cell phone. He’s calling Bryan Lourd: “Hey, Brian, Nick Counter. Look, I just wanted to thank you for helping mediate with Verrone and Young and get negotiations to start up again. ‘Kay, thanks, bye.”

He turns around and sees David Young glaring at him. “Who was that, and what were you saying about me?”

“Oh, hi, Dave,” says Counter. “I was just talking to Brian Lourd —”

“And talking to him about me behind my back?”

“No, nothing like that,” says Counter.

“Well, I heard my name and the word ‘upstart’ in the same sentence.”

“No, I was thanking him for helping the negotiations to start up again.”

“Nice try, you prick! Of course you know, this means war!”

Let’s get back to discussing the issues.

Stumbled on this chart:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Primetimenetworkviewers0828.jpg

You run a studio or network…you think this is a little cause for concern?

Is there a nexus between the 88 strike (or at least the issues surrounding them) and the decline of viewership? It looks like it.

Stooge

Kevin -

I wasn’t arguing pro Finke per se. But right now her reporting of the strike is good publicity for the WGA and consequently helping the cause.

Is all.

Clifford and Scott,

You’ve seen the contradiction in Finke’s blog that I was raising. I don’t think she’s crazy, but I do think her contributions to this situation have been damaging and unhelpful to anyone but herself. For the one time in five that she actually gets some real information that can be corroborated, there are the other four things she’ll throw out that are inflammatory and wrong. Such as when she posted the rumor that Fox had “just fired all of its showrunners” - and of course that wasn’t true.

I agree with Johnny Hartman that she’s showing a bias toward the WGA side - but that’s not a big problem to me. Anne Thompson did the same thing back in 1988 when she had Nikki Finke’s job at the LA WEEKLY. The difference is that Anne Thompson at that time was a fair-minded yet hard-nosed journalist. She didn’t report gossip on the 1988 strike - she reported angles and sourced information from named people as much as she could. Her summary analysis of what happened during that strike is important because it doesn’t just say “WGA Good, AMPTP Bad”. It simply told the story from a much fairer perspective, which assigned a lot of the blame to the AMPTP for triggering that one, but which noted the problems on the WGA side of the line. These days, I don’t find her commenting over at Variety to be as useful - she has noted an admiration for Nikki’s coverage, but this seems to be Thompson’s way of distancing herself from her newer Variety colleagues.

I check through a bunch of different sources to find whatever information comes out. As Nikki has been accurate around 20% of the time, I continue to include her in the list. It’s just that when I see her deliberately stirring the pot, I feel a need to take a shower. If I were to believe her last “URGENT!” update, I would have to think that the WGA folks were enraged and were going to go in today with a horrible attitude. This isn’t the case. The negotiations are continuing, and nobody has stomped out of the building yet.

My hope is that the negotiations lead somewhere fruitful for everyone fairly soon. As I’ve said, we’ll know that moment, because we’ll be hearing about a WGA membership vote at that time. That won’t be a rumor or an inflammatory statement - it will be a fact that will put everyone back to work. And once that happens, we can get back to the usual arguments. And Nikki Finke will continue to be a gossip columnist for the Los Angeles alternative paper.

Clearly people think she’s hurting the cause (pretty much everyone but you) with this current “report.” In what way do you find todays post helpfull to the writer’s cause?

Stooge

Brian -

“If everyone did it, wouldn’t that be indicative of a problem?”

I was giving a hypothetical…

But yes, it would be indicative of a problem, that there are too many dementoids in the world.

Stooge sez: “Now my point has always been that you would all be more unified if you were fighting over say having health care at all. Fighting for more money for some (those receiving internet residuals…and probably more specifically residuals from television projects) just isn’t all that unifying of a cause.”

I guarantee you, absolutely any member of the WGA who reads the above will recognize that final sentence as absolute fiction.

I haven’t been in the WGA all that long, only about seven years or so, which encompassed two previous contract cycles. Headed into both cycles, I noticed a very strong division between a faction of writers willing to strike if our demands weren’t met and a faction of writers willing to take whatever the AMPTP deigns to offer. Many times those factions broke down along tv/feature lines. Or employed/unemployed lines. Or old/young lines.

This time, there are no such factions. There are no “Union Blues” in the WGA in ‘07. Everyone—every single member of the WGA who I have talked to in person, or online—recognizes the importance of fighting for a fair share of new media revenue, and fighting for it now. Everyone realizes the mistake we made in the 80’s: giving away our share of VHS/DVD revenue. It’s a mistake we’re all, all of us, determined not to make again.

Stooge, I’m telling you, if your bosses truly believe what you have written above, they have made a misassesment of the highest order.

Patrick Meighan Culver City, CA

Another hilarious recent Nikki moment has been how she debuted those ‘Speechless’ WGA advocacy ads over thanksgiving. What kind of supposedly un-biased journalist debuts PR spots from one side of the issue she’s covering (even if it’s our side), and then brags about how she has an ‘exclusive’ on them? Yes, she did say she’d also run any promo spots the AMPTP came up with. and I’m sure she would, but serious journalists shouldn’t be running PR spots as if they were news in and of themselves. If, say, latimes.com did that, Nikki Finke the media critic would (rightly) go ballistic. It was a naked attempt to maintain web traffic during a slow period, for which she was only too happy to throw journalistic ethics out the window.

Point is, she’s just not someone to be taken seriously.

Johnny, Nikki’s “reporting of the strike” may feel good if you’re entrenched enough and angry enough to believe all those unsourced comments. But it’s certainly not good publicity for the WGA, and I doubt that any of the higher-ups like Verrone or Bowman think that it is. If it’s publicity for anyone, it’s for Finke herself.

Kevin, you’re correct that she’s showing an “anti-corporate, anti-mogul” bias on general principle. But this is to be expected at an alternative paper. If you really want to see examples of that kind of bias, the original version of the LA WEEKLY back in the early 1980s was all about that. Even the movie reviews tended that way. (And if you really wanted to go farther, you could check out the early 1980s issues of the LA READER which prided itself on being harder in its reviews than the WEEKLY did.)

I have no problem with an anti-corporate or anti-mogul state of mind. My issue with much of Finke’s writing, aside from the problems she’s creating during the current situation, is that she is so clearly disdainful of almost EVERYONE involved in the business. Whether they be actors, directors, writers, or fellow gossip columnists, she seems to grind an axe on everyone. And it can be funny at times, since she doesn’t have any real influence on someone like Harvey Weinstein as much as she wishes she did. But when she starts riling people up with innuendo and misinformation on the strike, that becomes troubling - as it contributes to the rumor mill rather than doing anything substantial to solve the situation.

Stooge/Working AD

Yeah, I think I’ll wait to read about it in The Enquirer or hear it from my ex wife. (who, back in the day, knew my show was cancelled before I did.)

and this phrase, by stuiec

“For the rest of us, uncertainty is the most ruthless bitch mistress of all.”

That’s worthy sir.

Patrick,

Or maybe you are the one drinking the kool-aid. I never said it wasn’t important, but it’s not an easy sell to those not financially interested. You’d have more support and more fervor if it were truly about moral issues, like the issues say the grocery workers were fighting for (a fair wage…fair hours…fair overtime…SOME healthcare, etc.). Then you should also consider whether the amount of money you are fighting for is worth what you (a) give up now and (b) the long term damage/effect to the business caused by the strike. I don’t have the answers, but I know these are worthwhile considerations. Not just some empty rhetoric like “we wont get screwed again like in 88.” Do you really appreciate all of the dynamics of the 88 strike (I sure as hell don’t)? I know some very prominent writers at the time groused about losing hundred’s of thousands of dollars to get a deal they could have gotten before the strike. It was a mistake to them…but not like you think.

And I don’t speak for my bosses. I don’t even know the studio head. Never spoken with him. I’ve said it before…I’m a nobody.

Stooge

Patrick, you’re absolutely right that the WGA is currently as unified as I’ve seen it since the 1988 strike. The AMPTP knows that. They also know that SAG has voiced its support. They also know that DGA has indicated it will not be rolling over and accepting the kind of thing AMPTP tried to offer the WGA this time. (Can you imagine them telling the directors they would remove their names from P&A? Would the titles read “A Film by…”? Or trying to redefine low budget as anything under 40M?)

If this matter settles soon, then we’ll have to see what happens as the later negotiations come up. If things stretch on until next summer, I don’t think people will be saying the same things.

MLBPA,

Sorry, man, but the WGA, when striking, has always used the very tactics you’re seeing today. We used picket signs, formed picket lines, and the town’s other workers (be they union or non-union) had to choose whether or not to cross the lines. And we did that despite the fact that there’s always been prodigious income disparity within our union, and also despite the fact the lucky minority of very-highly-paid writers on those picket lines (lo so many years ago) happened to make much more money than the average worker who crossed (or didn’t cross) the WGA picket lines.

Perhaps you should learn a bit about the history of the union you do not belong to, do not plan to belong to, yet somehow hope to revolutionize from without… anonymously, no less.

Patrick Meighan Culver City, CA

Johnny:

How nice it must be to always be right and that everyone not of your mind (regardless of how many that may be, including a majority) is a dementoid.

Building bridges as always…

AMPTP Stooge wrote:

Is there a nexus between the 88 strike (or at least the issues surrounding them) and the decline of viewership? It looks like it.

The first-order effect shown in that chart is that the new networks (Fox, then WB and UPN) ate into the viewership of the old three.

The second-order effect is, once you redistribute the Fox and CW viewers back to the numbers of the old three (or, if you prefer, total all viewers among all networks in each year), you don’t see any growth in viewership over a period in which the US population grew substantially. You see a declining trend starting around 1980. I think that correlates with the expansion of cable systems and networks that accelerated around that time — e.g., we no longer had to wait for NBC’s Friday Night Videos when we finally got our MTV.

It will be interesting to see how these trends extend as new technologies in high-speed Internet, large-screen computer displays and advanced video compression and transmission continue to develop. Once the big screen in the living room is able to display HD programming from a Web source as easily as from the cable or satellite, the traditional broadcast and cable networks will no longer have dominance over the means of disseminating programming.

If I’m able to produce desirable entertainment content and no longer have to bow and scrape to network excutives to get access to their distribution system, the power shifts from the network to me. And if I can transmit a “film” to consumers who have in-home technology to experience it with as much fidelity and impact as in a movie theater (say, via a 3-D projection visor with noise-cancelling headphones), then I don’t need the studio’s film distribution apparatus, either.

Anyone who thinks that writers are the only ones worried about the impact of new technology ought to consider how various past industries, from whaling to railroads, turned from industrial empires into rusted-out hulks almost overnight.

Working AD -

Finke ain’t no journalist. She’s a radical. And that’s what the WGA needs right now. Radical support. Sean Penn seems to agree…

Patrick,

Does the mere fact that immoral tactics have been used previously inherently make them moral? If so, then I guess the AMPTP might really have a moral claim to continue lying about revenue.

I am sorry that I have to point these things out about your organization from the outside, but most of you quite clearly don’t seem willing to do it from the inside.

Patrick,

I am pretty sure that it was because of the wealthy writers that the 88 strike ended. They were no longer willing to sacrifice. That’s what I hear. If anyone who lived through the 88 strike would like to comment on that, I’d love to hear it.

My main point is being lost, though. I am just saying that it’s naive to think that dissention doesn’t exist in the WGA and amongst the various guilds (certainly it’s obvious with IATSE and hasn’t the DGA undercut the WGA in the past?). You guys are all battling for the same piece of the pie and you don’t all share the same interests. That’s all. I am sure you are more unified than ever…but even that unity would start to erode if the strike continued for months and months. So the point is…let people voice a different opinion. It’s not going to kill the WGA’s efforts. You guys don’t have to be robots all following the same talking points.

Stooge

Why does the WGA need radicals? And Sean Penn can afford to do or say anything. Most of the rest of us have to live in the world of uncomfortable compromises.

Stooge

Wait, what did Sean Penn say now?

“I don’t have the answers, but I know these are worthwhile considerations. Not just some empty rhetoric like “we wont get screwed again like in 88.” Do you really appreciate all of the dynamics of the 88 strike (I sure as hell don’t)? I know some very prominent writers at the time groused about losing hundred’s of thousands of dollars to get a deal they could have gotten before the strike. It was a mistake to them…but not like you think.”

I didn’t mention ‘88. That quote is something you just wrote, not me. Lame and cheap tactic, that. Actually, I believe the term for the tactic is “strawman.”

In point of fact, when we got screwed was in ‘85, when we accepted a rollback in the cable/cassette residual formula, with the promise that our percentage could be increased if cable and cassettes (later, DVDs) ended up being lucrative. Well, they ended up being lucrative, and no, as you know, our percentage was never increased. That mistake—accepting the rollback in ‘85—cost the writers roughly $2,000,000,000 (that’s two billion, with a “b”) over the 20+ years since then. I guarantee you, that’s more money (by orders of magnitude) than the writers would’ve lost in missed earnings had the strike of ‘85 gone beyond 3 paltry weeks.

“I never said (new media revenue) wasn’t important, but it’s not an easy sell to those not financially interested.”

Well, I’m telling you, everyone in the WGA considers themself financially interested.

Mark Evanier puts it best, at the following link:

http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/20071110.html#014338

I suggest you read it if you want to get the WGA membership’s temperature on this issue, and appreciate how powerful it’s been in uniting the Guild for this fight. But here’s a snippet:

“…so far, the mob that yells, “Take the offer and let’s get back to work” has been pretty much non-existent. Why? Well, a huge reason is that the idea of agreeing to let the studios make as much money as they can off the Internet with us receiving bupkis is just too outrageous. Even those whose hearts are with Management have a hard time siding with that one…

I have one friend — well, let’s call this fellow an acquaintance — who I’ve known since we worked on a variety show way back in the days when there were variety shows. He’s always been terrified of a strike…any strike for any reason at any time. He’s always talking about burning his home down. Every time anyone mentions the “s” word in his presence, he starts hollering, “Why don’t we all just save time and burn our houses?” If the Producers were demanding their hedges be trimmed “or else,” he’d be on Peter Chernin’s lawn with the clippers at this very moment.

Even he doesn’t see that the WGA can do anything but what it’s doing. I hope the boys at the AMPTP understand that when they can’t even get this guy on their side, they’ve really botched this thing up.”

Best,

Patrick Meighan Culver City, CA

Brian — I have long known that I was either a dementian or a dementite… though Doctor Demento never told me which.

Brian -

“How nice it must be to always be right and that everyone not of your mind (regardless of how many that may be, including a majority) is a dementoid.”

It’s a beautiful thing, yes. One of the many perks of being stupendously superior.

Well put once again, Stu.

And I think the main problem as to why many writers can’t see this and are instead worried about getting “screwed” is, I beleive, all this radical rhetoric.

The WGA, and other guilds, and the AMPTP should be on the same side worried about losing their market share to any regular joe with a camera, a modem and a keyboard.

Stooge

Careful Johnny, you’re starting to sound like Tom Cruise at the end of “Taps.”

Patrick Meighan wrote:

Sorry, man, but the WGA, when striking, has always used the very tactics you’re seeing today.

There are stretches of years between WGA strikes, and what the Guild does during those times is as important as what it does when it’s actually on strike.

Now is not the time to go into it, but when the strike is over, it would be healthy to examine how the WGA can improve its relations with, support of and solidarity with other guilds and unions in the industry. Healthy because it will help build a stronger labor movement within the industry — perhaps even more broadly — and because it will help the WGA position itself for the next contract cycle, possibly building enough evident strength that it can win its goals in that cycle without having to use the strike weapon.

Johnny Hartmann wrote:

Finke ain’t no journalist. She’s a radical. And that’s what the WGA needs right now. Radical support. Sean Penn seems to agree…

What the WGA needs right now is for the AMPTP to engage in good-faith bargaining. If you think that radical rhetoric about evil corporations and greedy fat-cats is conducive to that end, you may, but my experience of human nature is that people tend to get defensive and irrational when you insult them and accuse them of being downright evil. Tends to put the whole let’s-make-a-fair-deal-so-we-can-all-get-back-to-making-movies-and-TV-shows thing on the back burner.

“Patrick, Does the mere fact that immoral tactics have been used previously inherently make them moral? If so, then I guess the AMPTP might really have a moral claim to continue lying about revenue.”

Calling something immoral does not make it so. And I’m sorry, but I don’t see anything done, to this point, by striking Guild members as being immoral.

In any event, my point was not that the Guild’s strike tactics are moral because they’re the same strike tactics that the Guild has utilized for 60 years. My point was that your newfound opposition to the Guild’s strike tactics is suspicious, given that they’re the same strike tactics that the Guild has utilized for 60 years.

And your whole “Oh gee, I thought I was supportive of the WGA, but gosh and golly you’re losing me” angle is a classic Concern Troll technique, particularly when voiced by someone anonymous. You can dispel my suspicion, however, by simply telling me who you are, who you work for, and what you do for a living… something that’ll require you to display not one iota more courage than me, here: Patrick Meighan, Fox Animation, Writer. Heck, I’ll even throw in my town of residence: Culver City, CA.

Come on, brave warrior for the underclass! All those uninsured writers you care so deeply for are waiting—praying!—for you to grow a spine and demonstrate your commitment to their cause!

In solidarity,

Patrick Meighan Culver City, CA

Patrick,

Sorry…you said in the “‘80’s.” I assumed ‘88 would fall in there. I certainly am not trying to be disingenuous.

I don’t deny that there are many WGA folk, like you, that are gung ho about this strike. I just think you underestimate the amount of people who aren’t and I think that number will just continue to grow as the strike goes on and on and on.

Anyway, do you disagree with my point that the AMPTP is fully aware that the WGA has internal rifts and external rifts with other guilds? Do you think that certain writer choice to go “off script” is really hurting the movement because it shows the WGA that you all aren’t part of the Borg?

Stooge

Stuiec,

I would say now is the imperative time to go into this, as you are currently involved in an active negotiation. In order to reciprocate the favor to these other unions, you would need to strongly negotiate for a conscience clause right now. As in any negotiation, that would probably involve making concessions in some other areas. The idea that you are going to all sit around and talk about helping these other unions with your hopefully fat contract in hand for 3 more years is selfish if you don’t actually have the means to do so. How are the Teamsters you have kept from crossing picket lines by manipulating their sense of duty going to feel when you hide behind your “no conscience clause” contract if they strike in the next few years?

stuiec -

I hearya, I do.

But Finke is not arguing FOR the WGA. She’s arguing PRO the WGA. The notion that the AMPTP could possibly be annoyed about this WITH the WGA to the point of breaking down negotiations seems farfetched.

Patrick,

He’s with you in your fight to be a capitalist and get more. He doesn’t appreciate a lot of the 1920’s labor movement rhetoric flying around. There’s also the hypocrisy of railing against Chernin not redistributing his income (who makes the same amount as say Groening). Why not go after Groening for not redistributing his wealth? That’s all. I think it’s a fair point.

Who he is is way less important than what he says. If what he says is rubbish, then so be it. Same with me. Even if I told you who I was it would be meaningless because I am a nobody.

Stooge

Patrick:

You say: “… given that they’re the same strike tactics that the Guild has utilized for 60 years.”

Here’s my point: if you feel you have continually been screwed over the years, why in Zeus’ buthole are you sticking with the same strategy?!?!

Maybe it is time to long within and try something different.

Stooge

“I don’t deny that there are many WGA folk, like you, that are gung ho about this strike. I just think you underestimate the amount of people who aren’t and I think that number will just continue to grow as the strike goes on and on and on.”

Fine, but if you want me to believe that there are many, many WGA members who are not willing to strike over the issue of new media residuals, you can start by finding me, oh, say three of ‘em. Out of 12,000 members of the guild. Find me three. Can you do it? Betcha can’t.

“Anyway, do you disagree with my point that the AMPTP is fully aware that the WGA has internal rifts and external rifts with other guilds?”

I do believe that the AMPTP is fully aware that the WGA has no internal rifts when it comes to the issue of striking over new media residuals. I’m telling you, man, it’s the one issue that could unite Patric Verrone and Craig Mazin. It’s the one issue that brings the WGA’s “radicals” and moderates together, to the same table. If the AMPTP had allowed this strike to center on the issue of, say, reality jurisdiction, this guild would be split right down the middle. If the AMPTP had lured Verrone and Young into striking over the conscience clause, again, the Guild membership would have enormous fissures in it. But the new media residual issue (the very issue you initially declared had relatively little power to unify the membership) is, indeed, THE unifying factor of this current strike… particularly because we Guild members are all painfully aware of how we got played for suckers in ‘85, and are determined not to ever, ever let that happen again on so vital a point.

As for whether or not we have solid ties to the other unions (and the extent to which the AMPTP is aware of those ties’s respective strengths, or lack there-of), I don’t think there’s any secret: SAG is with us, and the DGA prolly isn’t, and IATSE definitely isn’t. They know it, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it. So? What’s your point?

Patrick Meighan Culver City, CA

scott_stambler wrote:

“For the rest of us, uncertainty is the most ruthless bitch mistress of all.”

That’s worthy sir.

1, flattery will get you everywhere, and b, I still get dibs on the bumper-stickers and t-shirts. You can use it on the baseball caps (with attribution, of course).

Sorry, Stooge, but I’m with Patrick on this one. No one I’ve talked to is divided on the issue of getting new media residuals. They may separate on how to do it, but they all want it.

Patrick:

If the DGA wasn’t with you, the AMPTP wouldn’t be talking to you right now. They would be talking to the DGA.

Patrick,

The AMPTP has conceeded new media residuals. And for everything but ad-based streaming, they CURRENTLY pay a residual. The argument now is how the ad-based streaming will work. Will there be a residual free window? For how long? “How much” is probably pretty much done.

So…you think the WGA membership is unified behind the concept of say “we wont take less than a 3 day residual free window?”

Stooge

“Here’s my point: if you feel you have continually been screwed over the years, why in Zeus’ buthole are you sticking with the same strategy?!?!Maybe it is time to long within and try something different.”

Tactics and strategy are not synonyms.

Forming a picket line is a tactic (and one that the Guild has utilized in strikes dating back decades).

A strategy is a long-term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal. Personally, I think hiring an organizing department to extend our jurisdiction and hiring replacing a chief negotiator who has been exceptionally fraternal with his adversaries and replacing him with a chief negotiator experienced in adversarial negotiations are two examples of not “sticking with the same strategy” but, rather, “try(ing) something different.”

Patrick Meighan Culver City, CA

Stooge:

Not accurate. They are willing to pay the DVD rate only for downloads, which is not acceptable. They are willing to talk about paying on a streaming basis, but not for anything created solely for the internet (which is a major stumbling block).

p.s. The window is being measured in weeks, not days.

MLBPA, on the narrow issue of the conscience clause, I agree that this is something that should be put forward now because now is the time that something good might come of it. I would rate it as having zero chance of being included in a new contract (otherwise the “no strike” provisions would not be in all of the union and guild contracts down to the Teamsters — the friggin’ Teamsters, for cryin’ out loud). However, I think if the WGA negotiating committee raised it as an issue and gave it prominence, especially in response to a popular demand from the rank and file, it might give the AMPTP some cause to believe that labor is more organized than they give it credit for.

Brian,

Actually, the WGA has or was maintaining that 3 day window was the best they’d do. AMPTP is talking weeks. Who cares if it’s 45 days or 6 and half weeks (same difference)?

Saying the rate is too low is different than saying you get nothing. Most writers actually believe they get nothing. Goes to my point about the rhetoric and misinformation…blah, blah.

The other thing you mention is jurisdictional and to be specific AMPTP WILL agree to WGA jurisdiction for derivative work…they just wont for original work.

Anyway…not my point. Point is: is the WGA unified on the nuance of these issues (i.e., 3 days versus 30 days) and for how long?

Stooge

“The AMPTP has conceeded new media residuals.”

No, the AMPTP has not conceded new media residuals on internet streaming of tv episodes and films that they (unilaterally) declare to be “promotional,” even when they make revenue there-from.

I guarantee you the WGA membership is unified behind the concept of barring studios from withholding residuals on unilaterally-declared “promotional” streams and downloads of entire productions.

“And for everything but ad-based streaming, they CURRENTLY pay a residual.”

They (very infrequently) pay a residual at a rate that the AMPTP unilaterally set, and which the Guild has never accepted: .3%.

I guarantee you the WGA membership is unified behind the concept of “We wont take .3% for new media residuals.”

Again, man, if you’re so sure there’s dissention within the Guild on this subject, go find me some dissidents. I’m asking for 3. Find me 3, out of 12,000, not willing to strike over new media residuals.

You can’t do it. You can’t.

That should tell you something.

Patrick Meighan Culver City, CA

Johnny Hartman, where do you get the idea that Nikki Finke is pro-anything other than herself? She’s made that very clear to everyone. And the issue isn’t that the AMPTP would break down the talks because of her gossiping. The issue is that her posts are mostly inflammatory rumors that do nothing but polarize both sides of the situation. And yes, she does consider herself a journalist and a reporter. She has repeatedly said so. This is why her behavior is both shocking and reprehensible to most people here.

Patrick, if it makes any difference for you, I have given you as much information as I care to regarding my credentials, if you’ll look a little earlier in the thread. Josh understands my reasons for not jeopardizing my career in order to make points with this board. I would hope that you do as well. Not all of us are in positions where we can publicly shake our fist at the company and get away with it. Writers by nature are usually in that position, as are directors and actors - and so long as they are successful professionals, that’s considered to be part of the package. Look at Harlan Ellison over the years - really talented writer who regularly attacks the “suits” and gets away with it. That’s truly admirable. Now, name me one assistant director on a television series who publicly did that and kept working. I’d be curious to know who that was and how long their career went after that.

As for the 1985 strike, the WGA was not “played for suckers”. They were crushed and their strike collapsed. Sorry, but that’s what happened. It was a truly horrible situation and one I wouldn’t wish on anyone. The 1988 strike was partially about rebuilding after that event. The problem there was that the AMPTP assumed the WGA would quickly fold again, and they didn’t. For a good history on this, I repeat my reference to Anne Thompson’s 8-5-88 analysis from the LA WEEKLY. I’d post it here, but it’s too many pages. You can also find it on the microfiches at the downtown branch of the LA Public Library.

Also, you don’t know that the DGA “prolly isn’t” in support of the issues for which the WGA has gone on strike. As far as I know, the DGA is quite concerned about those issues and has made that concern known to the AMPTP. I have heard talk within DGA circles that the AMPTP may have thought the DGA would be more cooperative and has been realizing this will not be the case, which may have helped (in a small way) their decision to return to these discussions before opening new ones that wouldn’t go any better. I cannot confirm that as definite fact, since I’m not on the negotiating committee, but it certainly makes sense.

As for the history of WGA strikes and forcing people to decide whether or not to cross your lines, we’ve already discussed this AD NAUSEUM. I’m sure you’re not trying to denigrate my morality or that of my crew, including the Teamsters who drove through the picket line on location while several of us refused to do so. But I will point out that the two strikes I lived through, in 85 and 88, did not happen during the regular work season for television. In fairness, the 88 strike, which started in March, began at the very tail end of the TV season, and most shows shut down right away. The LA Times blog about the strike covers this pretty well. The vast majority of the time of that strike was during the usual hiatus period between TV seasons. So there were no crews to cross the lines at that time. Of course, when the situation in 88 got really bad and Jeffrey Katzenberg got particularly nasty, there were pickets organized at theaters showing “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”. If you see that happening here, that’s when you’ll know the strike has gotten ugly.

Working AD,

You keep addressing me as though I’m asking you to name yourself. I’m not.

You’re not playing the Concern Troll game.

MPBPA is. That’s why I’m asking him to name himself, to dispel my suspicion.

Go ahead, Working AD, and remain anonymous.

Ditto your unnecessary redefense of picket-crossing. I haven’t addressed you here, so why do you keep responding as though I have?

Patrick Meighan (Writer, Employed by Fox Animation) Culver City, CA

So what if he’s not concerned. And how do you really know? Because he wont say who he is? This is so silly.

Argue MLBPA’s points. He has made some good ones.

You still haven’t responded to my point about using the same old strategy that keeps getting you “screwed.”

Stooge

Patrick,

When I wrote to Nikki on her website, I used the handle “You’re losing me…” to signify that she was losing me as reader. I did this for the same reason that Clifford discussed above in regards to her posting the “Speechless” advertisements with no editorial comment, which is why I posted it there. I mean for god’s sake, she works for LA Weekly.

As far as the timing of my comments, I will again say that it was solely spurred by the fact that I had never before seen the WGA use these tactics. Although I wasn’t here in ’88, I was a pretty politically-minded 12 year old then so I can safely say that my position on the topic would probably be consistent.

Finally, I am sorry that you and I have different ideas of courage. To me, using your real name in a situation in which you automatically gain admiration from your peers is not the same as using your real name to change an organization you belong to for the better when it might also make you unpopular among your peers. You can feel free to disparage my decision to remain anonymous by calling me a wuss, stooge or a hypocrite, but I would much rather hear you debate my points as to why I think these specific tactics are immoral in this situation.

Furthermore, if you think the idea of health coverage for all people is a cause worth mocking, then you are a luckier person than me to never have known someone who has suffered from a lack of it. I would also like to think that you would be the last person I would have to convince as to why someone might want to affect positive change from the outside without having a personal agenda. But then again, I don’t really know you.

Patrick Meighan wrote:

As for whether or not we have solid ties to the other unions (and the extent to which the AMPTP is aware of those ties’s respective strengths, or lack there-of), I don’t think there’s any secret: SAG is with us, and the DGA prolly isn’t, and IATSE definitely isn’t. They know it, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it. So? What’s your point?

I don’t know what anyone else’s point is, but my point regarding the foregoing is that the WGA and the other guilds and unions need to do a better job than they have in the past of building labor solidarity across the industry. The strike’s course would be far different if all of the guilds and unions and the vast majority of their members were in a position (organizationally and financially, if not contractually) to support the strike wholeheartedly and to refuse to cross picket lines.

To get anywhere near that point will take a concerted effort, and it probably has a better return on that effort than organizing to expand jurisdiction (to take one example). That is why it’s an appropriate discussion to have AFTER this strike is concluded.

“You still haven’t responded to my point about using the same old strategy that keeps getting you “screwed.””

Yes I did. At 2:37pm.

PM

Patrick,

My sincere apology. Thank you for taking the time.

As to solidarity. If the DGA and SAG was fully with you…they wouldn’t be working right now. Lip service is nice, but don’t you want action? Oh they have a no strike clause? I see…

Stooge

“You can feel free to disparage my decision to remain anonymous by calling me a wuss, stooge or a hypocrite, but I would much rather hear you debate my points as to why I think these specific tactics are immoral in this situation.”

I haven’t heard a well-argued point yet. Just your opinion (note that noun) that it’s immoral for a union which includes (a very small minority of) very wealthy members to utilize the same strike tactics that are also utilized by unions which do not include any very wealthy members. Okay. You’re entitled to your opinion. I happen to disagree with it, which is also something to which I am entitled. I don’t really know what more there is to say here, other than for you to go, “No, I really, really think it’s immoral,” and me to disagree in proportionally strenuous terms, ad infinitum.

“Furthermore, if you think the idea of health coverage for all people is a cause worth mocking, then you are a luckier person than me…”

First of all, evidently, I am a luckier person than you if you are so hunted that you aren’t even at liberty to write your own name on an internet message board. I thank the heavens I’m not as oppressed from without as you appear to be. If there’s anything I can do to help you sever your chains, please let me know.

Second, I don’t think the idea of health coverage for all people is a cause worth mocking. I do think that your timing in insisting that the WGA pick up that mantle is worth mocking. So far you have exactly one WGA member (out of 12,000) persuaded to the worthiness of your cause, and that would be me. But you seem determined to lose even that one person’s support, by insisting on a timing that that one person assures you is inauspicious. Can you see how your recklessness with me, your idea’s lone supporter, would make me come to doubt the sincerity of your commitment to your purported cause?

Why wouldn’t someone like you, so moved by the plight of uninsured writers, go, “Okay, I got this guy, Patrick Meighan, who’s a decently-placed, decently-paid, decently-connected working writer, who evidently cares about labor issues, and is receptive to my idea. He just wants to know my name, and to wait a couple months before starting this campaign that’s so important to me. Those are two small prices to pay, in exchange for gaining a valuable ally (perhaps even, eventually, a champion) in my dream of extending health care coverage to the WGA’s entire membership.”

I think that someone as committed to this ideal as you purport to be would be willing to make the above two sacrifices.

I think that a Concern Troll, however, would do what you’re doing, and do so anonymously.

So, sorry, man, but I’m done taking you at face value. It’s just killing too much of my time and energy (another chief aim of the Concern Troll).

Patrick Meighan Culver City, CA

I liked the first Concern Troll record, but then they signed to a major label and got way too commercial for me.

I thought it was one of those things you put at the end of your pencil with the crazy hair.

Stooge

Quill Me:

My wife was ‘91. Maybe you knew her. Email me if you want.

I should have majored in philosophy. Kind of figured that one out too late.

Patrick, sorry to tick you off. But some of the statements you have made here are pretty sweeping and have the tinge of a moral judgment against anyone who disagrees with you or acts differently than you do.

Once you get into the big tent statements, there are times you may get the attention of people at whom you aren’t currently aiming.

I’m glad that you understand that anonymity is not a sign of cowardice. And I’m glad you understand that the DGA is more supportive of these issues than many people here may think. And I disagree with Stooge on that point - I don’t think the DGA is just “paying lip service” on this.

Of course, as you know, I have never defended the notion of crossing a picket line. I did the opposite. You interpreted my statements to be a justification of that, and we disagreed. And continue to do so. And that’s irrelevant - since me and my crew are no longer employed in this business anyway, and will not be until this strike is concluded. I should ask, though: if the act of entering a picketed studio is automatically crossing the line, why did you move your picket over from the main gate to block the crane from entering? Shouldn’t it have made no difference? But again, you’re right, there’s no need to revisit that area since we’ve both made our points on this.

And I’ll add that I hope the WGA is insisting that the conscience clause be made part of the new contract, just as I am insisting that it be made part of the new DGA contract. That, with the awareness that the only real help the clause gives you is the right to file a grievance and lawsuit after you’ve been fired on those grounds.

Craig Mazin wrote:

I should have majored in philosophy. Kind of figured that one out too late.

Nice that you can look back on it philosophically now, though. ;-)

Stooge,

I think you’ve been raising an interesting point about the unequal benefits that the issues we’re striking over would confer, in the short term, to various groups of people among the strikers. I just think you’re wrong to assume that it has much, if any, significance.

To tackle the easy item first: The division between “TV people” and “movie people” is far less pronounced now than it was during the last strike. In the ’80s, those really were like two separate, gated communities that happened to negotiate together every few years. That’s changed for two reasons. First, although it’s hardly a perfect revolving door today, people do cross over (and back) a lot more easily and a lot more frequently than they did back then — and not just on the creative end. The number of production companies with at least a toe in the water on both sides of the divide is enormous, compared to decades past. People who do successful work in one arena now get actively encouraged to try their hand in the other one too, and doing so no longer means that you have to start back at square one, dealing with a bunch of people to whom you’re a total unknown. So there’s less of a tendency or incentive to view any given negotiating point as “those people’s benefits, which have nothing to do with my life.”

Much more significant, though, is the fact that the business models are bleeding into one another to a much greater degree than in the past. The fact that TV shows are resold on DVD or as paid downloads means that those categories of residuals are no longer just a concern for “movie writers”; they’re a major concern for writers, period. And although it isn’t happening yet that I know of, it’s not hard to envision a time when one of the release windows for a movie, during the later stages of its shelf life, will be “free” internet streaming supported by ads. Not to mention that we’ll also undoubtedly see the emergence of things that don’t look exactly like traditional movies or traditional TV shows, but are still distributed and still earn their money through exactly those same means. As people keep saying, it’s all just content now. As writers, collectively, our financial interests have far more in common now than they ever did in the past.

And then there’s the bigger issue you’ve raised: that of income disparities, “success” disparities, and so forth between various Guild members. (I think the point you’ve brought up that residuals only get paid out in success, and that many writers on many projects won’t ever get them, is particularly interesting — I haven’t seen anyone phrase it quite that way before. Honestly, no sarcasm here yet.)

The thing is, though, you’re assuming that we’re all a bunch of short-term thinkers, when the very nature of starting, let alone sustaining, a career in this business requires us to be just the opposite. Yes, if you looked at the six-month period immediately following the resolution of this strike, whenever that comes, you could undoubtedly point to the majority of Guild members and say, “See? After all those sacrifices, you haven’t earned any internet residuals at all! You went on strike for nothing!”

This has the interesting quality of being true, yet also being complete bullshit. With very few exceptions, even getting started in this business entails a period, often lasting years, of working your ass off without getting paid at all. Followed by a period of working equally hard while still earning very little money. All done in the sincere belief that we are sufficiently smart and sufficiently talented to see our labors bear fruit eventually. We are all about the future. We not only believe in upward mobility, but further believe, quite specifically, that it applies to us, personally, as individuals. This is why the divide-and-conquer crap has zero resonance with anyone except a small handful of complete, hopeless burnouts who are convinced that their best years are already behind them. When you point to someone who’s making a lot of money and go, “Look! That guy’s the one reaping all the benefits you’re striking about,” it doesn’t have the effect on us that you think it does.

Because you’re speaking in present tense, and we think in future tense. Simple as that.

If you fed us sodium pentathol before posing the question to us, I think you’d find that 99% of us believe, down to the very core, that we’re at least as talented and capable as “that guy,” if not more so. We may not all be correct in this belief, but we all believe it. Which means we also believe that if he can do it today, we can do it tomorrow — and naively or not, we fully expect and intend to do so. We wouldn’t be here, putting up with all the shit we currently put up with, if we didn’t. And therefore — key point — we want all the benefits that “that rich guy” is currently enjoying to still be waiting for us when we get there.

His fight is our fight. Sorry if that seems irrational to you, but it is. We didn’t go into our careers with the intent of failing. (Nor did we go into them because of the terrific health benefits, just for the record.) I do like the way you’ve phrased of the issue, because getting paid in success is precisely what we care about most, and most passionately.

Even those of us who aren’t terribly successful, just yet. Whatever our weak point may be, this one isn’t it.

Sorry, had to take care of some business stuff (yay!).

Stooge:

Someone already pointed out that the download rate wasn’t negotiated or accepted, so I won’t delve further there.

Obviously, we disagree that the length of the window for streaming is important. I think it will be measured in weeks, just not sure how many.

Third, I know about the derivative work, but new work made exclusively for the internet is crucial. Say a pilot isn’t picked up by the network, but the studio decides to put it on the internet. No residuals. Even if it becomes a huge hit.

And if it were no big deal, then why fight to keep it off the table?

Pseud,

No…not irrational. Fair points. I disagree. A little too much for me to parse, so I’ll let me previous statements speak for themselves. We will see what the unity is like in say 2 more months. And, by the way, don’t think I don’t apply the same logic to the AMPTP. Also not unified.

The funny thing is…all I am trying to say is that people should be able to disagree and deviate from the “must show uniformity on everything” mumbo jumbo.

Stooge

Patrick,

You will only help fight for health care for the uninsured if I tell you my name? That seems creepy to me, which is kind of why I don’t put my name on public websites in the first place.

Also, you have only somewhat addressed one of my issues with your straw man argument. Some of my others are as follows:

1. The reason why every other union that has ever carried a picket sign does not have the disparity that yours does is because they are willing to sacrifice for their less fortunate members. That did not seem clear to me when you rephrased my argument regarding wealthy writers picketing.

2. It isn’t fair to make the Teamsters, etc. not cross your picket lines when it is clear that your organization will not be able to reciprocate that in the future because you are not seriously negotiating for the conscious clause.

3. That there will be lasting damage to the American labor movement by having the public correlate picketing and labor rallies with self-serving, highly-visible, highly-paid writers and actors.

Also, I think a lot more people than just you agree in helping insure more writers. Some, like Clifford, also seem to question using these tactics right now without the moral underpinnings in place (which again speaks to your concerns with “timing”). I am sorry that you feel picked on, but in my opinion if you’re not part of the solution, then there is a good chance you are part of the problem.

MLBPA:

So, what’s your plan for universal healthcare within the guild? And why is it the AMPTP’s responsibility? They provide money for health care. The guild decides how that money is going to be allocated. The timing is wrong, because it has nothing to do with negotiations with the AMPTP.

How do you know they aren’t “seriously negotiating for the conscience (sic) clause(?)” You have some inside info?

Why do you underestimate the public’s decision making abilities? You seem to think them incapable of understanding nuances/differences in individual labor movements. On what are you basing “lasting damage?”

You can stay anonymous as far as I’m concerned. But I’m not willing to have my morals subjected to your standards until you show me how it’s going to work. And I want specifics, not typical generalizations.

Brian,

By the way, sorry if I sounded like a snide, know it all. I have much respect for you and your comments.

“And if it were no big deal, then why fight to keep it off the table?”

I would guess that they are more worried about paying up front money then contingent money (or residuals which only would arise in success). I don’t have any idea what minimums the guild wants applied to original new media work, but if it’s the same as say the network tv minimums, then I can see that effectively ending the idea of doing original work if you are a studio and, therefore, the studios insistence on fighting the good fight.

The length of the window IS important (the crucial point, which is what I said in my post that you responded to). However, whether I call it 7 days or 1 week is not. I think I am right in saying the WGA wants 3 days and the AMPTP wants 45 days (or 6 and one-half weeks…whatever).

If a Pilot were not picked up and it were put on the internet, then of course there would be no residuals due. It’s the first airing. Since when are there residuals do for primary markets? The guaranteed payment covers the first airing. Now, the question is…at what point into its streaming period does it stop being the “first airing”. I don’t know. I am sure that’s a sticking point. Also, bad example. It’s complicated in that the network retains some rights in the Pilot that they paid a license fee for. The rights would revert…after a year and the network would have the exclusive right to exhibit the Pilot.

I think generally speaking, the studios can’t possibly compete with non-signatory entities/people who could undercut them in terms of production cost if they are forced to work within the current system to produce original programs for the internet. A new model needs to be created and the WGA is reluctant to do so.

Stooge

Pseudonymouse, I would add this observation: while the higher-paid members of the WGA aren’t necessarily redistributing their income to the lower-paid members, they are redistributing their prestige during the strike.

If the only people who went out on strike within the Guild were the unemployed and underemployed members, but the A-list talent and well-paid staff writers kept on working, the strike could go on until the end of time without affecting the AMPTP’s bargaining position. That the people who have the most absolute dollars to lose from not working are out on the picket lines (or at least “pencils down”) means that they are making a big contribution to the so-called “lower classes.”

Brian McCabe wrote:

How do you know they aren’t “seriously negotiating for the conscience (sic) clause(?)” You have some inside info?

It’s on the WGA’s list of contract demands (last item). How aggressively they are pursuing it is a different question, but it would be very good if there was a groundswell of rank-and-file support for this provision.

Brian,

“No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.” HL

Stooge

Hey, has anyone been to the WGA happy hour at The Griffin? Is it actually fun?

AMPTP Stooge wrote:

A new model needs to be created and the WGA is reluctant to do so.

Yeah, but are the studios and networks any less reluctant?

Joel Silver now gets his funding directly from Wall Street, his talent via direct contract, his production facilities and crews via rental. If new technologies enable him to reach audiences while completely bypassing the studio distribution systems and television networks, what purpose do the latter serve?

Power in that scenario flows to the organizations and/or people who have the ability to put toegther complete productions that have some objective indicators of audience appeal (based on the track records of those organizations/people and the proven appeal of the components of those packages). Ownership of the means of production — sound stages, backlots, television transmission systems, film distribution systems — won’t have a controlling role what gets produced and distributed.

Or am I stating the obvious?

Stooge:

I did not take as snide, know it all.

I also do not believe the WGA position is that new work made for internet should equal network tv minimums (someone know for sure?)

My understanding on streaming is that length of window and percentage are the two figures that were being debated on Black Sunday. There is a number in between on both that should work. Don’t know what it is, but it’s in the middle and hopefully that’s what they’ve been talking about these last couple of days.

As far as the pilot argument goes, first airing on streaming will depend on that window and download should fit under whatever download rate is decided upon. What about it being made solely for internet that makes either model exclusionary? Also, keep in mind that when delivery system for television becomes the internet the appropriate resiudal rate will apply. A pilot airing on the network via internet would garner no residuals even though it is picked up.

Brian,

Let me respond item by item:

“So, what’s your plan for universal healthcare within the guild? And why is it the AMPTP’s responsibility? They provide money for health care. The guild decides how that money is going to be allocated.”

I agree. I think it is the WGA’s responsibility. This is my suggestion from before:

Every year, hold a massive rally (why should writers only get together in contract years?) that we will call the WGA 500. At this rally, the 500 highest earning WGA members of the previous year (counting ALL income from written work, i.e. no skimming out on the licensing Matt and Seth) walk up and drop their tax checks (sliding scale of course) into a big box that says “WGA Health Fund” on it. People can cheer, solemn speeches can be made and cute assistants from Shark can even serve drinks. Everybody can feel good about themselves and this way, maybe some talented writer who is having an unlucky year won’t be so stressed about not being able to earn $30k by March in order to get treated for their staph infection.

Are we ready to take a roll call yet?

“The timing is wrong, because it has nothing to do with negotiations with the AMPTP.”

Again, my timing is based solely on the fact that the WGA is using these tactics right now without the moral underpinnings in place. So either get them in place or stop using these tactics.

“How do you know they aren’t “seriously negotiating for the conscience (sic) clause(?)” You have some inside info?”

My evidence is both based on historical evidence and in that the Guild has yet to make any public plea for what would probably the most morally defensible position in their proposal. I hope I am wrong, but I wouldn’t bet the house on it.

“Why do you underestimate the public’s decision making abilities? You seem to think them incapable of understanding nuances/differences in individual labor movements. On what are you basing “lasting damage?””

I think the day that the Drudgereport runs the headline “WGA SHAME – Thousands without healthcare while billionaire$ increase earnings!!!” will cause the many people that you have recruited to your cause to think twice about helping labor movements in the future. To me, the risk of that happening isn’t worth the meager rewards (in my opinion) that you are gaining from using these tactics. Again, this is certainly up for debate.

MLBPA:

But what if I don’t share your opinion that the top writers should support the lower writers? What’s moral about someone who can’t make it as a writer living off someone who can? You presume that all writers work equally hard and should benefit as a whole the rewards, but to quote you “I wouldn’t bet the house on it.”

But that aside, your major gripe seems to be that the guild not strike because they haven’t laid the appropriate (according to your standards) groundwork in morality, in specific vis a vis health care. How absolutist of you!

Consequently, the public have been scammed by the moralessness of the cause will feel duped and will refuse to help other labor movements. I understand especially in light of how the labor movement hit major setbacks due to the previous ‘88 strike, not to mention the godless actor’s commercial strike of a couple years back. I remember vividly how the grocery store clerks publicly condemned the SAG and WGA strikes for taking away from their causes.

Brian,

If you don’t share my opinion on employee health care coverage, that’s fine. May I suggest however that you go work at Wal-Mart corporate where you will be able to profit from that value system more directly instead of wasting your time on union politics?

Again, we need to make a clear distinction between merely striking as a collective bargaining unit and actively portraying yourselves as a part of the larger labor movement via picketing, rallies and claims of solidarity with the middle and lower class. And my absolutist sense of morality vis a vis health care is shared by every single other organization who uses those tactics. You should not use them.

Those historical claims you make are unproven and are not necessarily indicative of the future. In case you haven’t gotten the message from the WGA, these are different times.

MLBPA:

Wow. Socialism or Wal-Mart? No inbetween? I can see why you are having problems with the WGA.

So, to be clear, the WGA can strike. It just can’t picket? In order to fall into what you think is appropriate behaviour. What you really mean is that your absolutist sense of morality vis a vis health care should be shared by every single organization who uses those tactics. Since, you know, the WGA uses those tactics and, by your complaint, doesn’t.

And, finally, the historical fact that there were at least two major work stoppages using the tactics you believe should be reserved did not impact other work stoppages is irrelevant. But the potential problems you envisage with no basis behind it is very relevant.

Now, I have a question for you. And I’m not trying to be demeaning or dismissive, but how old are you? I want to know because if you are some twenty something person out of college full of piss and vinegar with all sorts of ideas of how to cure the world (which is how I’m envisioning you now) effects how I respond to this in the future.

I’m open to new ideas, but I like to know how things work. For instance, your plan requires the top 500 to give up their “tax checks” (which I’m not exactly sure what that refers to) into a box, presumably to be divided. Is that mandatory? What if as a member of the top 500 you don’t want to? How are you going to make it so the system works?

Brian,

At the risk of violating some sacred oath of my profession…I think I love an agent.

And he’s not even my agent. Jesus, what’s the world coming to?

:)

stuiec (4:42),

Yup.

Brian,

“Be aggressive but not too aggressive; know the rules and regulations; be trustworthy; care about the whole client, the person as well as the career; always return phone calls; and always reward loyalty.”

Those sound like the words of a wise man.

MLBPA wrote:

Again, we need to make a clear distinction between merely striking as a collective bargaining unit and actively portraying yourselves as a part of the larger labor movement via picketing, rallies and claims of solidarity with the middle and lower class. And my absolutist sense of morality vis a vis health care is shared by every single other organization who uses those tactics. You should not use them.

As I recall, even Major League Baseball players have walked picket lines.

The question is not whether the WGA has the right to behave as other unions do with respect to picketing and calling for labor solidarity. The question is whether, having done so, it will take the steps after the strike to reciprocate labor solidarity to the other unions and guilds.

As for the Guild assessing a health care levy on earnings above a certain threshhold to fund coverage for lower-paid members, that seems to me to be an internal matter for the Guild to decide and one that doesn’t impact the rest of the labor movement.

““Why do you underestimate the public’s decision making abilities? You seem to think them incapable of understanding nuances/differences in individual labor movements. On what are you basing “lasting damage?””

I’m glad someone finally asked MLBPA this question, ‘cause I intended to ask it, myself, several times.

The workers from the LAX 4 Points Sheraton marching with us WGA members last Tuesday were grown men and women, capable of making their own choices, and, indeed, made their own voluntary, willful choice to march with us, even though the specific issues driving their fight aren’t the specific issues driving ours, and even though they certainly must’ve been well aware that some (few) WGA members earn much more than (most) other WGA members. Similarly, I, myself, was a grown man last year (during the sit-in on Century Blvd.), capable of making my own choices, and, indeed, did make my own voluntary, willful choice to get arrested with the hotel workers, even though the specific issues driving my labor fight aren’t the specific issues driving theirs. MLBPA, upthread, gives me great credit for making the choice that I made last year. But as for the choice the Sheraton workers made last Tuesday, MLBPA writes as though those workers are well-meaning retarded children, credulous and eager to please, and god damn that evil WGA for filling their poor heads with words that, some awful day, they’ll finally understand to be lies and then where will our labor movement be?!

I think we should give our brother and sister union members credit. Whether they march with us and honor our picket lines, or whether they disagree with us and cross our picket lines, they’re capable of making their own informed choices, for their own self-interested reasons. And, in point of fact, they are doing exactly that.

“I think the day that the Drudgereport runs the headline “WGA SHAME – Thousands without healthcare while billionaire$ increase earnings!!!” will cause the many people that you have recruited to your cause to think twice about helping labor movements in the future.”

For the umpteenbillionth time, income disparity within the Guild is not new. Nor is the non-universality of the Guild’s healtcare coverage. So if those two awful truths weren’t enough to derail the American labor movement after the WGA strikes of 1960, 1981, 1985, or 1988 (all of which included rich Guild members manning picket lines… a tactic you declare to be objectively immoral when not practiced by the working poor), what is it about the WGA strike of 2007 that’s so different as to cause a uniquely damaging blow to labor?

In any event, I encourage everyone (especially MLBPA) to join SEIU tomorrow at a rally and march downtown to support their drive to organize L.A.’s security workers. It starts at 11:45, and meets at Library Park (the SE corner of 5th and Flower). It’d be great if SEIU (which was out in force for us last Tuesday) sees that we WGA members stand with them as well.

I’ll be there, and hope to see you too.

Patrick Meighan Culver City, CA

Well, Variety is reporting that the negotiations will continue tomorrow — that’s significant, because the Thursday session wasn’t scheduled as of Monday. Thus both sides have agreed to continue talking.

Now for the conjecture: if the gap between the two sides was unbridgably wide, they could have quit after today’s session, the last of the three originally scheduled for this week. My guess is that either they have narrowed the gap on the key issues, or they have agreed to set aside the most divisive issues in order to reach agreement first on side issues and then return to the central issue.

It’s a hopeful sign, but not a conclusive proof that an agreement is in the offing. Keep your fingers crossed.

(By the way, the Variety article also indicates that the AMPTP is beefing up its PR efforts in response to public opinion favoring the writers in this dispute.)

MLBPA,

The fundamental reason for the income disparity between members of the WGA, relative to “traditional” labor unions, is not, as you so facetiously proclaim, because all other unions care about their members and this one doesn’t. It’s because the product (or service, take your pick) that WGA members provide is infinitely variable, is unique in every separate instance in which it’s provided, and has massive differences in its (externally realizable, i.e. financial) value from one case to the next.

The WGA is indeed unusual in that it only sets wage floors, not ceilings. Many unions impose both, in one form or another — for example, “Job A pays this many dollars per hour, period, and members are required to spend X number of hours performing Job A before they can ever become eligible to perform Job B, which pays more.” Or its more extreme variant, “All of the above plus someone currently performing Job B has to retire or die first.” Or its less extreme variant, in which “ties” between otherwise-eligible candidates for Job B are decided exclusively on the basis of seniority. Whether such arrangements are to the benefit or detriment of (most of) the members of the union enforcing them is something about which reasonable people can certainly disagree, as I suspect you and I probably would.

I happen to like the idea of a union that offers me some basic protections as a member of the collective, yet still allows me to excel as an individual on the basis of my own talents. You don’t, clearly. Fair enough.

Regarding the Guild’s eligibility rules for health care, I would guess (and this is purely a guess, let me emphasize) that they probably stem from the basic concern that if somebody sold one spec script back in 1983 and hasn’t worked in the business since, we don’t necessarily want to be on the hook for the full cost of his health care in 2007. I can sense that the calculus which underlies that desire on our part is something that’s anathemic to your entire worldview, so I don’t expect you to agree with me that this is a wise or good concern for us to have; I would ask you, however, why you’re choosing to focus so narrowly on this one union at this one time. It sounds like your ideal, in the big picture, is a system of socialized medicine for all, combined with income redistribution in a global sense, from all the rich to all the poor. So why not direct your energies and complaints toward the government and society at large (whom you previously claimed is in substantial or complete agreement with you on this point), rather than just the leadership and membership of the Writers Guild? (That way, you wouldn’t have to worry about the nature of the fine intellectual distinction between Groening and Murdoch, ‘cause they’d both be covered, along with everybody else.) Aren’t we kind of small potatoes for a visionary of your calibre to be devoting so much of his time to?

In any case, your faux concern for the less fortunate members of this little Guild of ours comes off as exactly what it is — a sham construction upon whose back you can then proceed to rail and preach about the one issue in the world that you actually do care about. Which is absolutely your right to do, if you want to, but has zero to do with us or our strike.

But thanks for pretending to care about us, all the same.

By the way, that SEIU rally actually kicks off at 1247 W. 7th Street (7th and Bixel Street) at 11:00 am, and then buses will transport everyone to Library Park for Part II of the rally, and the march’s start.

See you all there.

Patrick Meighan Culver City, CA

Patrick, will you also be going to the December 9 Strike a Deal Rally and March? It starts at 9AM at Hollywood and Highland in front of Grauman’s Theater.

Interesting article in The Hollywood Reporter about the studio and network executives. It points up an interesting fact about media consolidation that may work in the WGA’s favor in the strike: the big media conglomerates have both television and film properties, so while the film executives may think they aren’t as pressured by the shutdown of TV production, their corporate bosses may pressure them into supporting a deal with the writers that helps salvage the TV season.

“Patrick, will you also be going to the December 9 Strike a Deal Rally and March? It starts at 9AM at Hollywood and Highland in front of Grauman’s Theater.”

I’ve never heard of that. I don’t know what that is, who’s sponsoring it, or what its purpose is.

And I just googled it and got nothing.

Could you please elucidate, or point me to a website or something?

Is it expected to draw 4,000 attendees (the rough turnout for each of the WGA’s last two rally/marches)?

Patrick Meighan Culver City, CA

No problem, Patrick.

Try http://strikeadeal.blogspot.com for all the info you’ll need.

Basically, it’s a rally and march of below the line people who have lost their jobs and livings due to the current strike, who say “We are not organized or sponsored by any union or guild. We are a spontaneous grass-roots outgrowth of the concern and desire of below-the-line industry professionals and vendors whose jobs, livelihoods and futures hang in the balance. We urge the WGA and the AMPTP to come to terms NOW to avoid lengthy and devastating damage to our industry, our city and our lives. LET’S GET BACK TO WORK!”

I’m hope you’ll agree with these sentiments and that you and other WGA members will be present to show your support for the below the line crew.

I do not know how many people will attend. According to the NY Times, hundreds of people are organizing it from various TV shows. I heard about it before I was laid off, but nobody could tell me exactly when it was planned.

And I tried googling it alone and got nothing. When I combined it with “Get Back in that Room”, a reference popped right out. I don’t know if you’ve heard of “Get Back in that Room” - it’s another blogspot site which lists as of 11/20 a whole pile of below the line people who lost their jobs and at that point were asking both the WGA and the AMPTP to resume negotiations. Once the talks started again, that site went dormant as its goal had been achieved. The “Strike a Deal” site, however, had a march planned for 12/2 that had to be pushed back by one week, both due to the talks continuing and to issues with LAPD. I look forward to attending along with the rest of my crew and many AD colleagues from other productions. I hope you’ll show your support at that time. On the other hand, if a contract is somehow achieved before then, I’ll be the first to say thanks.

Working AD,

Ah.

So you ARE a Concern Monkey.

If Strike A Deal really gave a shit about working people, they’d be marching with us, not against us. If the AMPTP caved in right now and gave us everything we asked, we’d STILL be getting the tiniest crumbs from a meal we created.

The AMPTP is as pressured as they can be, right now. The only thing this does is attempts to cast the strike in a bad light. No idea who’s actually behind it, but at best it’s profoundly ill-advised. At best.

Taken straight, they’re essentially asking us to take a shit deal permanently so they don’t have to take a shit deal in the moment.

We’re AT the table. We’re negotiating in good faith. The overwhelming majority of the American public supports us. The town supports us. The only purpose this group serves is to undercut that.

There was a radio reporter on the line the other day interviewing everyone. He kept asking the same question - “Do you feel guilty for the economic hardship this strike has created?”

He was clearly not going to leave until someone said yes, but finally he had to give up. Because NOBODY out there feels GUILTY about what this strike has done. Sympathy for people hit by it? Abso-fucking-lutely. Concern for the economic effects it’s having. Definitely. But guilt? No. The question itself is an insult.

We’re a union of men and women who provide the foundation for a billion dollar industry. Whether we’re struggling TV writers or massively successful feature writers, we deserve to partake in the profits our work generates.

If you want to march for something, come march with us and let the AMPTP know they have to bring a decent offer to the table.

Josh, I am shocked at your comments.

First, there is no need for name-calling. I don’t even understand where that is coming from.

Second, nobody is asking the WGA to take a bad deal, or is asking you to feel guilty. If you do feel guilty about the situation, then that’s a matter for you to decide.

You have just admitted that you have “no idea who’s actually behind it” but you’re willing to condemn Strike a Deal without even trying to find out. If someone can show me that Strike a Deal is really just the AMPTP in disguise, I’ll be the first to take appropriate steps. But I see no indications of that - in fact, it doesn’t seem to be something that the AMPTP likes either - the last thing they seem to want is to be pressured into making a deal sooner.

What if I told you it is backed by exactly who I said it was - below the line people who are concerned about the possible loss of their jobs and livelihoods for upwards of 7 months? Are you saying that they have no right to have a say in what is happening, and no right to hold their own rally? I cannot believe you would actually think that they should stay quiet when their careers are being threatened.

You seem to think that Strike a Deal is focused on the WGA. Please actually read their statements. And read the statements at Get Back in that Room. You’ll find they are quite sympathetic to the WGA. What they are asking for is for BOTH sides to find a way to make a deal. Not just your side. BOTH sides.

I don’t know where you get the idea that below the line people asking both sides to consider the “collateral damage” somehow consitutes undercutting one side of the talks.

I brought this march up as Patrick had raised the issue of the security workers rally and march that happens today. I had hoped he would be interested in the other industry march that’s been in the offing, as it directly addresses the effects of this strike. And again, I see nothing about it that says anything to single out the WGA or to ask the WGA to get less than a fair deal.

Josh, I am going to hope that you simply looked at my post very quickly and had a bad reaction. And I hope that you’ll think about what you have just said, look over the material and then, with a clearer mind, do the right thing.

Working AD,

We all want this to end quickly. Your “strike” movement is redundant and a little selfish. It assumes the WGA/AMPTP are having fun and wasting time at the BTL workers’ expense. As far as I can see, we’re not. But I’m open to you proving me otherwise.

Josh is right on this one. Walk with the WGA and apply pressure to our employers to settle quickly or walk against us (neither choice is wrong if it is what you believe to be in your best interest). But don’t flounder in the middle and wave your finger at both sides.

Pick a team, support your argument, or step off.

SML, the “Strike a Deal” movement is neither redundant nor selfish. It does not assume that the WGA is “having fun and wasting time”. Please show me something that has them saying that. They haven’t.

You and Josh seem to be having a knee jerk reaction here, and it’s one that I honestly don’t understand. You seem to be saying that the thousands of below the line crew who everyone admits are collateral damage in this conflict have no right to say anything unless they stand on the picket line with your side.

I have made my argument in the last post and you seem to have ignored it. Please take a little more time and actually read what I’m trying to say. Read what the guys at Strike a Deal are trying to say. Then let me know.

I am completely sympathetic to the needs of the WGA for a fair contract. And I have stated that here many times. Everything I see about this rally is that they are sympathetic as well. But they have a right to have their voices heard. I cannot believe that you would wish to silence them.

Working AD,

I don’t wish to silence them or you. But I want them and you to tell me something I don’t already know.

How do you purpose we (on both sides) end this quickly? Compromise? Well, that’s what we’re doing. That’s, in a way, the definition of negotiation. Active negotiation. Which is currently taking place.

Or are you letting us know the BTL workers are hurting? I know that. Seems like Josh knows that. And it’s shitty. I feel for them. And I know what it’s like. Because I’m out of work too. Because my guild is on strike.

So I don’t understand your movement’s purpose.

You say you want us to get a fair deal, well, guess what? At this point, we believe we have to strike to get a fair deal. Do you support our strike or do you think it’s wrong? There’s no middle ground. Choose a side (no side is wrong, just argue your point).

I believe your movement is redundant because, it seems, the WGA/AMPTP are trying to end this quickly.

Your movement is selfish because you’re asking us to be empathetic to your problems and yet, save for your kind words of support, you’re not empathetic to ours or the methods we need to solve them.

So when I say, “Pick a team, support your argument, or step off.” I’m saying use your voice to change my opinion not to tell me what I already know.

I want you to speak up, I need you to speak up, I just don’t want you speaking up for speaking up’s sake.

SML wrote:

I’m saying use your voice to change my opinion not to tell me what I already know.

People already know what the WGA’s position is, too— does that mean our picketing is “redundant”? I don’t think you need to be saying something new to have a demonstration. Nor does one have to pick a side in the binary way you seem to indicate. I wouldn’t describe myself as pro-Israel or pro-Hamas, but I’d join a march supporting the Annapolis Conference.

Pseudonymouse,

Very well written, but you seem to miss the entire point of my posting. We completely agree that there are fundamental differences between the WGA and “traditional” labor unions. My point is that the WGA tends to mimic “traditional” labor unions only when it serves their purposes. This is why the same people here who previously said “The AMPTP is screwing our middle class!” in front of the SEIU, etc. are now saying “Our middle class writers are too untalented to receive WGA Health Care!” You collectively can pick to have any kind of organization you want; just don’t pretend to be something you aren’t when it suits your purposes.

Also, I do not have much concern, much less faux, for your organization. It is quite clear that your union does not cover health care for the majority of your membership because the members collectively do not give a shit. I have no idea why, other than maybe everyone thinks their big win is right around the corner or maybe it’s the “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” phenomenon. Although your product may be somewhat unique, I can give you about a thousand examples of similar industries that have managed to cover a higher percentage of health care than yours does. But regardless, the spec in ’83 example is a cheap shot when you and I both know how high the limit is in your guild to receive health care.

SML (and Josh)

First, let me make something clear. “Strike a Deal” is not my movement. I didn’t start it and the only connection I have to it is to attend the rally with the rest of the below the line crew from my show that can make it. I heard about it from the UPM of another show three days before my show shut down. I checked it out and have been unable to find anything nefarious about it. Just below the line crew trying to make their voices heard. And I’m all for that.

The purpose of the rally should be obvious. It’s to give a voice to the crew - the people who are caught in the middle of this thing. Most of whom are sympathetic to the WGA’s need for a fair contract. Including me.

Both this rally idea and the “Get Back in that Room” blog were started before both sides agreed to return to the table, during the time that Counter said he wouldn’t talk during the strike and Young was making the comments to the LA Times about being treated like “a rock star” that incensed Tom Short. The point I saw at that time was to make clear to both sides that public posturing was not going to bring an end to this situation - only fair negotiations.

Since that time, the sides have returned to the table, and we have all crossed our fingers. If I were to believe any of Nikki Finke’s updates this week (and I have mentioned my issues with that), I would have to conclude that the only movement there has been for them to walk in the door and sit down. If I were to go with the comments of Mark Evanier, I would have to conclude that we’re just waiting for another blowout where both sides blame the other for not being reasonable, and then walk out for another month. So far, neither of those conditions appears to be happening, so I’m keeping an open mind about it. If they figure something out this week, or early next week, then obviously there will be no need for any such rally. If they walk out, you can bet the rally will be on in a big way.

As for supporting your strike, I have already said that given the circumstances on that last Sunday, the WGA had no choice but to go out. But I also believe the entire situation was avoidable. And I have repeatedly said here that I hold both sides responsible for this. I think that there was no way the WGA could accept the contract offered by the AMPTP. Having read it, I can tell you that if they try to offer that to the DGA, we’ll see an equally unfruitful process. I believe that this was made clear to people at AMPTP by higher ups in my guild, and I believe that this contributed to their willingness to sit down again with WGA rather than wait for the DGA.

So I believe the WGA was right to negotiate for a fair contract, and not what the AMPTP initially tried to offer. I also believe that the AMPTP believed the WGA would wait for the other guilds, so they didn’t think they needed to seriously negotiate. Hence, a crummy offer and very little movement. Add to that a hardline position from the WGA side (not to mention some unfortunate statements of brinksmanship from both sides), and you’ve got the ingredients of a strike. All through the negotiations, I had hoped for cooler heads to prevail, for both sides to try to actually make a deal, and finally for the federal mediator to actually do something, like call for a “cooling off period”. Instead, we saw one day of negotiations on the final Sunday, which ended with both sides blaming each other. And now we’re a month into a strike that could go a lot longer. And the result of it is that my entire crew has been left unemployed for what could be months. One of our lead actresses told me “See you in July” when we said goodbye. And I’m prepared for that. But my crew isn’t, and I don’t know what will happen to them.

If the WGA and the AMPTP really want to end this quickly, then they will do so. And as I said, that would obviate the need for the rally. But if everyone walks out again, then I don’t think you’ll find it redundant for the crew to be telling everyone to get back in there.

You think that it’s selfish for me to offer words of support on a blog. I don’t understand that statement. How else would I show my support? If you are asking me to go picket my employer, I would remind you that assistant directors who publicly speak out against their bosses don’t tend to get rehired. Meaning, my crew might get rehired, but I’d be the one who didn’t. So the comments I have offered here are one thing. Another step I have been taking has been to lobby within the DGA for the conscience clause to be prioritized in the AD conditions for the new contract.

If you’re asking me to blindly support the WGA, then I’ll tell you to think about that idea again. I’m a DGA member, and I’m sympathetic. I don’t think you guys were wrong to go out. But that doesn’t mean I automatically think in black and white terms “WGA good, AMPTP bad” because nothing in life is that simple, and as a good writer, you should know that.

SML wrote:

How do you purpose we (on both sides) end this quickly? Compromise? Well, that’s what we’re doing. That’s, in a way, the definition of negotiation. Active negotiation. Which is currently taking place.

Correction: you that active negotiations are going on. You only ASSUME that any compromise is taking place.

Active negotiations were in process on Nov. 4. Very little in the way of compromise was accomplished — hence, the strike.

You say you want us to get a fair deal, well, guess what? At this point, we believe we have to strike to get a fair deal.

Correction: you have to have negotiations with the AMPTP in which both the WGA and AMPTP are negotiating in good faith. You have to strike to persuade the AMPTP to negotiate in good faith and to persuade them that you are committed to your demands. But the strike itself doesn’t get you the fair deal — only the activity across the bargaining table will create the final deal, and the strike is only a tool to create leverage on the AMPTP in that process.

So it seems to me eminently reasonable for people whose livelihoods have been interrupted by this contract dispute to rally to put a bit of leverage on both the WGA and AMPTP to keep at the bargaining table and reach a deal, even as stumbling blocks or impasses arise. The only parties who can dictate the terms of the final deal are the WGA and the AMPTP, but that doesn’t mean that other parties don’t have the right to urge the WGA and AMPTP to keep after that deal. Remember, the first several weeks of the strike saw no active face-to-face bargaining sessions — no one should want a return to that.

Clifford,

What a silly analogy… but let’s use it anyway.

Tertiary political groups call for peace in Israel. Both Israel and Palestine are involved with this process. These tertiary groups propose ways to speed the peace process not in their own interest, but in the interest of both Palestine and Israel.

We, the tertiary political groups, have only a moral interest in this peace process. Our lives are not directly affected by this war. Our involvement, your support, on the surface, is selfless. We just want to make the world a better place, right?

The Annapolis conference does not, in any way, equal Working AD’s movement.

Using your analogy, Working AD’s movement is equivelant to what Hamas was (and still is? I thought Fatah is the major political party in Palestine)… a fringe movement that does little to aid the peace process.

SML: Oy, if you think our lives as Americans (or Canadians, which I think you are) “are not directly affected” by the Israel-Palestine crisis, then I don’t know where to begin. But anyway, you’re right, it’s probably not the best analogy, and I think Working AD’s 9:49 post explains the situation well. I gotta go picket.

Notice how Josh and SML vehemently oppose a 3rd party labor group organizing and voicing THEIR opinion based on THEIR interests (geez, that sounds like what the WGA is trying to do). Notice the lack of support. And you think I’m crazy about raising doubts about the WGA’s selflessness and unity within and without. I also guess it makes it easier to just assume everyone is in the AMPTP’s pocket and all disagreements are part of their diabolical master plan. Concern Troll, Stooge, whatever. What a joke.

At the very least, if writers do truly believe their work product is the essence of what keeps this town in business, then you have to also take the responsibility for shutting it down. Guilt is exactly what you should be feeling. No one had to strike to get results. You may THINK that was the correct strategy to get what you want (selfish…nothing wrong with that), but it certainly wasn’t the only way.

Also, Josh keeps talking about how the WGA is only asking for “mere crumbs”…a pittance, if you will…shows how clueless he is. Shows what a disservice he does to this negotiation. These are not crumbs. Raising costs, if not offset by additional revenue, will lead to lost jobs…one way or the other. There are serious consequences to getting you paid “mere crumbs” not the least of which is that it is actually serious money. We’ve been trying to discuss these rationally here. Many, including Josh, chose to follow that ridiculous bit of fiction. So damaging.

At the very least, I can’t imagine Josh or the like are winning hearts and minds with this approach. You can say “the public is with you,” but self-serving pronouncements are meaningless (who’s the “public”, Josh? Your mommy? Your fellow writers on the picket line? Where are you going, except here, outside of your comfort zone to catch the pulse of America?)…except in your lil, adorable fantasy world.

Stooge

SML,

Seriously?! Only a moral interest?! Wowzers.

Who else here thinks bringing stability to the Middle East is simply a “nice thing to do?”

SML, homey, Israel is like the ingrown toenail of the Middle Eastern foot (take er ez, I’m Jewish and pro-Israel). Our support for Israel has caused…well…geez, what a waste of time. Who doesn’t understand this?!

Stooge

If people are really upset by the ‘Strike A Deal’ demonstration, I have a great idea— a counter-demonstration!

Counter-Demonstration Slogans:

“No to negotiation, enjoy your forced vacation!”

“We don’t want a deal, good luck finding a meal!”

Stooge

I am shocked that folks out there really blame writers for the decline in jobs. It’s so naive, it’s hard not to think that it’s some sort of propaganda.

If there really are below-the-line people out there who truly blame writers for what is going on, then one can’t help but wonder… where are the fruit baskets and flower bouquets to thank writers for creating the need for their jobs in the first place?

Asking writers to stop the strike so others can work is like asking rape victims to keep taking it up the ass so proctologists keep busy…

“Also, Josh keeps talking about how the WGA is only asking for “mere crumbs”…a pittance, if you will…shows how clueless he is.”

CLUELESS?

Really?

How UNCIVIL of you.

Craig, do your thing…

Johnny, but the Strike A Deal demonstration is in no way: “asking writers to stop the strike so others can work.”

AD,

“Josh, I am shocked at your comments. First, there is no need for name-calling. I don’t even understand where that is coming from.”

It’s coming from the fact that you’re clearly smart enough to understand what this group is doing, but pretending not to be.

“Second, nobody is asking the WGA to take a bad deal, or is asking you to feel guilty.”

Sure you are. The implicit statement of this organization is that the WGA is just as complicit in this situation as the AMPTP, and that we’re not negotiating in good faith. This group - and, I assume, you - wants us to speed it up and take a definitionally shittier deal so that they - you - can get back to work.

That we’re striking for issues that affect EVERYONE who works in this town is being deliberately ignored (Seriously - are these guys so ignorant they don’t understand how their residuals will be affected by our negotiations?) So their stated mandate is not on the up and up. And you, being an obviously bright guy who understands a lot of what this strike is about, HAVE to know better.

Thus, my conclusion that you are, actually, a Concern Troll.

“You have just admitted that you have “no idea who’s actually behind it” but you’re willing to condemn Strike a Deal without even trying to find out”

Absolutely. Like I said, at best, they’re ignorant. At worst, they’re stooges. End result is the same - it’s an organization whose only effect will be to undermine this strike. Believe me, I’ve been looking into who’s behind it for the last week or so, but at the end of the day, the motivation matters less to me than what they’re doing.

To be clear - whatever motivates these people, the only potential result of their actions will be to undermine the strike.

“What if I told you it is backed by exactly who I said it was - below the line people who are concerned about the possible loss of their jobs and livelihoods for upwards of 7 months? “

This is where that whole anonymous thing kicks in. When I assert something, I’m putting my real name and reputation on the line. You’re “Working AD.” The best you can do is craft a compelling argument. You have no basis for asserting truths based on your integrity. By definition, you have no integrity to trade here. Again - I’ve expressed sympathy for your position, but you’ve abrogated the right to assert anything as factual.

“Are you saying that they have no right to have a say in what is happening, and no right to hold their own rally? “

What is this need to equate criticism with censorship? Are you saying I have no right to point out that this is a group who is working against the best interests of striking writers and, in the long run, all of us? They can say whatever the hell they want. I have the right to point out that they’re either dupes or stooges.

“You seem to think that Strike a Deal is focused on the WGA.”

You seem to think everyone here is stupid…. heh. Not an entirely wrong-headed assumption, frankly. But yeah - they ARE focussed on the WGA. They’re equating us with the people we’re striking against. They’re rewriting the situation so it’s one that we’ve created mutually, as though we don’t have the right to reject terrible offers.

“I don’t know where you get the idea that below the line people asking both sides to consider the “collateral damage” somehow consitutes undercutting one side of the talks.”

It’s an offensive presumption. It’s like me asking you not to beat your children. I’m disgusted by the fact that I’m even stooping to respond to that comment.

“Josh, I am going to hope that you simply looked at my post very quickly and had a bad reaction.”

Nope. I was already well aware of this organization, and was shocked to see you promoting them here. Until then, I was willing to buy into the premise that your concerns were sincere.

“I checked it out and have been unable to find anything nefarious about it. “

Like I said, motivations don’t matter. Their actions themselves are nefarious.

“The purpose of the rally should be obvious. It’s to give a voice to the crew”

Funny. I know plenty of crew people who’ve already got voices, and who use them when they join us on the line. They, however, recognize that we’re all in this together.

“the people who are caught in the middle of this thing.”

You’re not caught in the middle of anything. Our contract is up first, so we’re the ones who have to stand up to the AMPTP first. The proper response to that is, “Thank you.” If we succeed, you may not have to strike. You’re very welcome.

“Since that time, the sides have returned to the table”

We never left it. And we’re negotiating as we speak. So a rally to urge us to negotiate, aside from being transparently phony, is just plain stupid.

SML,

“So I don’t understand your movement’s purpose.”

Yeah, you do. It’s an attack on the WGA, an attempt to dismantle some of the support we’ve earned over the last four weeks. It’s an attempt to convince the more credulous members of the IA that we’re the bad guys here.

By the way, a brief skimming of one of Stooge’s posts only re-affirms the obvious conclusion that he’s aptly named.

Dude - are you a regular employee, or do they actually just pay people to troll for them?

Hilarious. Anyone who treats this guy like he’s serious is an absolute fool.

Working AD,

“If you’re asking me to blindly support the WGA, then I’ll tell you to think about that idea again. I’m a DGA member, and I’m sympathetic. I don’t think you guys were wrong to go out. But that doesn’t mean I automatically think in black and white terms “WGA good, AMPTP bad” because nothing in life is that simple, and as a good writer, you should know that.”

First, I’m not Josh. I do not ask for blind support. Or blind dissent for that matter.

Second, I fully agree with you. This could have been avoided. Both sides are at fault and those who are tertiary to this process, who have been hurt by this process, deserve to be heard. But, at least in your movement’s current incarnation, they’re spouting issues we’ve already heard and are, it appears, currently addressing.

As for the black and white of it, I fight only for the gray.

(Note: Of course this is not literally your movement, just like this strike is not literally mine).

Yes, clueless. Really. Wow, that was easy.

Wait, you guys are too busy patting yourselves on the back about how you are the engine that makes this bus go for anyone else to get the chance. But you don’t want to take any grief for shutting it down. I find that childish. Time to put on the big boy shoes. With great power comes great responsibility. You will agree with that…a writer wrote it.

And look…I guess Iraq FORCED us into a pre-emptive strike. We had no choice, right? Or maybe we did.

Stooge

Regular employee. Like I said. I am employed by a major studio. Nothing new here. Said it from the start. And I share no concern whatsoever for the writers that chose to walk out (strike). Your choice.

“You seem to think everyone here is stupid…. heh. Not an entirely wrong-headed assumption, frankly. But yeah - they ARE focussed on the WGA. They’re equating us with the people we’re striking against. They’re rewriting the situation so it’s one that we’ve created mutually, as though we don’t have the right to reject terrible offers.”

Newsflash for you Cronkite, you are the same. You know, when you quit…it’s kinda hard to say you are fired. See the way it works is that you continue to work under the old contract while negotiating the same. Remember on Black Sunday how the AMPTP asked you to push back the strike and you refused? Well, geez, I don’t see that as the AMPTP’s fault. Now, it definitely takes 2 to tango, so clearly the AMPTP shares the burden with you…but the key word here is SHARES. Grow up a lil, bub.

Btw, the residuals aren’t the same and they aren’t all guild members, the people holding this demonstration. Mostly, unlike the WGA, these are people that solely rely on their wage. For writers, pretty much only a select few even get residuals, but they are substantial. If you are IA, everyone gets a piece of pool of residuals…but I think even that is put into PHW fund, not into their pockets. I am sure you know all of this though.

Seriously though, you don’t care if they are motivated by true, righteous reasons?! It’s only that they stand in your way?! You are nuts. You can’t really be like this.

Josh…just once I’d love to see you actually try and use some facts to support your claim. Your main tactic is to simply label someone essentially as “subjective” (stooge, troll, etc) and to move on. But, then again, you don’t have a damn clue what you are talking about. This is obvious.

Stooge

Josh,

Would you care to share with everyone here how much money you made off the last script you sold? Let us all know how bad you have it. Bring us into the light.

Stooge

Johnny Hartman, where did you get the idea that the Strike a Deal rally is about blaming the writers for the strike? And why are you so defensive about this? You want me to send fruit baskets to the writers on the shows I have worked on to say thank you for my career? Are you serious?

Josh, you seem to be reacting emotionally to what I have tried to tell you here. I am asking you to take a deep breath and think about this stuff before you do that. I have asked you to stop with the vitriol and the name-calling and instead you have increased it. The short version of your entire response appears to be “I disagree with you and so I’m going call you names now.” Further, you have gone back on what you said yesterday, when I explained the reasons why assistant directors do not publicly come out and shake their fists at their employers. Your response then was “I get it.” Your response today was to impugn my integrity and continue in this unfortunate direction.

If you feel that the rally of below the line people is somehow an affront to the WGA, you’re free to do so. If you feel that anyone who goes to that rally is somehow your enemy, that’s your opinion. My issue isn’t your right to voice your opinions. It’s that you are attacking me for voicing mine - and you’re doing it in a personal manner.

I’m glad you know some crew people who have walked your picket line. I know a lot of other crew people who will probably not do so. They won’t cross your lines, but they won’t join them either. You seem not to be understanding the difference, and I know you’re smarter than that. You accuse me of pretending I don’t know the “real” reason for that rally, when the reality is that we disagree about it. I wish you could accept that, but it sounds like you’re too wound up to calmly discuss this.

The purpose of that rally isn’t to attack the WGA or to make you feel guilty. I’m sorry if you are feeling guilty - but that isn’t the point of the rally or my posts. Like I said, I brought it up because Patrick has mentioned another rally he is attending today, and this one feels closer to home.

You’ve already said that you’ve been looking into this for a week and can’t find anything, other than your own disagreement with them. If you actually find something - like sponsorship by one of the moguls, or statements that swing to the AMPTP, then I’ll be the first to say it’s a bad idea to go there. But it’s simply unreasonable for you to tell below the line crew they shouldn’t attend a rally.

I asked before for you to do the right thing, and I’ll ask again. I’m hoping you’re simply upset right now and will think more clearly with a little time.

Clifford -

That’s fine, as I said, I’d be shocked if any below-the-line folks really truly blamed writers for the lack of jobs out there… from what I’ve seen they are not only the hardest working people in the industry, but also the most sound.

Working AD,

Look, this is all fun and games for Josh. He clearly enjoys more of the rabal-rousing aspect than engaging in sane, rational debate. Maybe he’s bored…maybe he’s just gone crazy. I don’t know.

Stooge

Given that I allow anonymous comments (for any number of reasons), I don’t think it’s fair play to suggest that these commenters have any less moral integrity than anyone else. I’m not too happy about this “give your name or you’re less than” meme.

All that should matter here are the arguments made.

Similarly, this is still my website, last I checked. I’ll decide who the asshole trolls are and who deserves the benefit of the doubt. You can all go make your own lists elsewhere.

WorkingAD is neither morally questionable nor a troll, and I frankly find it disgusting that he’s been attacked in this manner. He’s one of the most interesting, thoughtful and respectful commenters I have.

I think that Josh is 100% correct in that there is no way you can have this rally without saying the WGA is complicit in this situation. Honestly, I don’t even understand how it is up for debate. If you really don’t think the WGA is complicit and we still want to use icky political analogies, it’s more like you are rallying for the Nazis and Jews to sit down and work their shit out.

Instead of being all namby-pamby about it, why not come out and just say that it is time for the greedy AMPTP to stop lying about revenue and it is time for the greedy WGA to stop pretending that their fight for residuals (which they pocket) is the same as IATSE’s and tell them to get this deal done?

Working AD,

Josh never accused this movement of being associated with the AMPTP. He said this movement acts in opposition and places, symbolically, sole responsibility for your circumstance on the WGA’s shoulders.

And if we are looking at the symbolism of the demonstration of a demonstration, it does. Even if you place an asterisk explaining both the AMPTP and the WGA are to blame, the physical act of demonstration acts to juxtapose the WGA’s physical act of demonstration.

Stooge,

What does salary have to do with this? How much do you make? How bad are you hurting?

Also, you’re a hypocrite and you cause shit just as much as anybody else.

This debate is about the validity of “Strike a Deal.” Get on the boat.

This is hardly fun and games. This is a fight for cash. The Strike a Deal Rally WILL hurt WGA membership. By marching and asking both sides to “find a deal” is to equate both sides. That means that these marchers and Working AD think it doesn’t matter who wins here. They’re wrong. If the WGA wins then the DGA below the line people will benefit: They will be in a better position to strike a deal with their employer. If the WGA loses, all laborers in this town should look for a comfortable hole, because you will be rolled over.

Josh, I’m in awe of your work. And I respect most of your posts. Vitriol aside, or vitriol astride… I don’t think you needed that third line in your reply to Working AD. I don’t mean to be the ‘editor’, it’s that I relate to his posts. (I’ve been a working stiff for 30 years.) He doesn’t need my defense but I appreciate the time/effort he takes to express himself. Also, I find him credible around here. You know what I mean? If I had your email I’d send you this note. I’m hoping my honesty doesn’t provoke you. None of what follows is aimed your way except the last quote.

As a general observation - the opinions that people are expressing and exchanging in this forum is mind boggling hard to do. And most are WRITERS. Hanging around here - I feel better informed, then say my neighbor who’s a retired electrician but has no idea what this strike is about.

But the way I see it go down is that many people are talking and few are listening. There’s not a lot of give and take. It’s the nature of internet forums.

With that in mind, and returning to the latest hot bed - I think it’s worth quoting Stuiec (most of the time)

“So it seems to me eminently reasonable for people whose livelihoods have been interrupted by this contract dispute to rally to put a bit of leverage on both the WGA and AMPTP to keep at the bargaining table and reach a deal, even as stumbling blocks or impasses arise. The only parties who can dictate the terms of the final deal are the WGA and the AMPTP, but that doesn’t mean that other parties don’t have the right to urge the WGA and AMPTP to keep after that deal. Remember, the first several weeks of the strike saw no active face-to-face bargaining sessions — no one should want a return to that.”

Craig,

Who are you addressing?

Working AD -

I didn’t say that the Strike a Deal rally is about blaming the writers for the strike…

And I don’t want YOU to send fruit baskets, feel free though, my point was that if anybody were to blame writers for the loss of a job THAT PERSON should also thank writers for creating the need for that job in the first place.

Sheesh… am I really that unclear?

I’ve already said I make $120k a year. I am fired by February if the strike lasts (I guess maybe that only encourages you). I ask Josh how much so he can stop grouping himself in with other people that don’t have it so good (and questioning their integrity).

I cause shit…when I’m behaving like a moron. I aint perfect. I think usually I apologize. Look, I bite sometimes. This is a tense situation for me and I can be a fiery guy myself. Definitely not right. I truly wish I were as composed as Cliff, AD, Craig, Ted, Brian, etc.

You are reinterpreting (and even incorrectly) what Josh is saying. He specifically said they were stooges…perhaps unwittingly.

“Strike a Deal” is valid. There. I’m on the boat.

Here’s a few questions for you, sir: Why do you have a problem with labor organizing to further their interests? Or are writers the only laborers that are allowed to organize? Or are people only allowed to organize if they support and agree with you?

Stooge

Scott,

We are debating methods not rights. No one, at least I’m not, is saying tertiary parties affected by this strike should not have a voice (be they fans, BTL workers, or spouses). I’m debating (and I think Josh is too) the way in which they are choosing to express themselves and how it acts in opposition more to the WGA’s goals than to the AMPTP’s. They have a right to this expression especially if they’re in support of the AMPTP. But according to Working AD, this is not the case. They support the WGA.

So what’s wrong with the WGA saying, “Yo, what you’re about to do… yeah… not so good for us”?

I’ll keep this brief, and then I do have other things to do for a while. (Like answer questions of ADs who keep calling me thinking I know something about the negotiations, or from lay friends who think I know something about the business, when I’ve just been waiting for someone to figure out I don’t know anything more than the next guy…)

Craig and Scott, thank you.

And to be very clear, I am not asking for the WGA to take a bad deal in order to end the strike. I want both sides to stay at the table until there’s something the WGA and the AMPTP can live with. I’m concerned that they will do what Mark Evanier has predicted and have another blowout. If they actually get something done, I’ll be a lot happier. And yes, I have already said I think both sides are responsible for the situation. No conflict is entirely the fault of one side, unless you’re talking about things like the Holocaust, and we aren’t. This is a business negotiation, and there are other parties involved, that’s all.

As for the DGA benefitting from the WGA strike, I wouldn’t make that statement. We don’t know how the DGA negotiations will go, as they haven’t started yet. All I do know for sure is that the AMPTP apparently told their DGA counterparts that they had a large list of issues this time rather than the usual handful. And I believe, but can’t prove conclusively, that the DGA counterparts made clear that they will not roll over in the manner that Nikki Finke has predicted. The negotiations will really be about what the directors get - not the assistant directors who are pretty much just along for the ride. And be aware that in every negotiation I have seen since I became a member, there was usually an AD rollback for everything the directors got. I could itemize them here, but this is not a blog for me - it’s Craig’s and yours as writers. But if the DGA chooses to strike, as happened in 1987, then I’ll be out on the picket line with my guild, just as you have been out on the line with yours.

Richmond,

“This is a fight for cash. The Strike a Deal Rally WILL hurt WGA membership. By marching and asking both sides to “find a deal” is to equate both sides.”

You are right…it’s a fight for cash. Both sides fighting over 1 pool of cash. Both fighting for the SAME thing.

To me THIS is THE problem with the writers’ approach. You so badly want to couch this in terms of a fight for right…maybe it helps you sleep better at night…maybe it’s what keeps you walking in circles at least 4 hours a day. It is a farce, though. It’s business…on both sides. Both are greedy…one wants to TAKE more the other wants to KEEP more. Neither side should feel any remorse at all (unlike, say, if the AMPTP was refusing to pay a decent wage or healthcare).

Now, what I’ve tried (and probably failed since I slip up and act like a jackass so much) to do is get writers to move past this unhealthy concept of morality and right and wrong and “he started it, not me.” In my mind, if everyone just focuses on “how much money do I think we can get versus how much money we will lose trying to get that amount”, then this strike can be short and sweet. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of work and an open mind to figure that equation out. Many of the writers seem completely disitnerested in looking beyond the rhetoric.

Frankly, just as long as I never get fired (see, I am supremely self interested), you guys can knock yourselves out. I don’t give a crap if the AMPTP “wins.” Actually, I am an out and out liberal, truth be told. I hate big corporations. I just hate bullshit even more.

Stooge

Johnny Hartman, sorry but I really do find some of your posts unclear. Your enthusiasm is clear, but the content sometimes is escaping me here. Sorry, that’s just me.

SML, I appreciate what you’re saying. The way you have phrased it is clearer to me, and I see your point. I can understand the idea of WGA members wanting the AMPTP to see the below the line crew as all united with the WGA in this strike. Phrasing it to me as “not so good for us” makes sense to me. My objection to Josh was just that I didn’t think I earned the treatment I just got. People will say I should grow a thicker skin (particularly as an AD), but there is some stuff I just will not eat.

“Given that I allow anonymous comments (for any number of reasons), I don’t think it’s fair play to suggest that these commenters have any less moral integrity than anyone else. I’m not too happy about this “give your name or you’re less than” meme.”

That so, Craig?

Because the other day you said…

“Funny how so few of you have the courage to put your names to your opinions. I may have a lot of issues with the way Josh Olson comports himself, but at least he owns what he writes.”

Craig Mazin, on October 22, 2007 11:34 AM

SML

“So what’s wrong with the WGA saying, “Yo, what you’re about to do… yeah… not so good for us”?”

Nothing at all. I wasn’t debating with anyone on the particulars. I kick back and read the opinions and if I have anything to add or ask, I do. I never jump in this early on anything,

It’s that the sledge hammers came out and I thought it got too personal. And as one of those non wga below the line dudes who support the strike even though I may end up having to stand at a freeway exit selling oranges…. - I felt like speaking up about the WAY things were being said. That’s all.

The other day = over a month?

Craig, thank you for coming around. And it was nice of you to try and throw Josh a bone.

Johnny - at least Craig is lucid enough in his posts so that we can pick up on apparent contradictions.

Stooge

“Both are greedy…”

Hmm… I don’t think this is about greed. This is about winning and losing. It’s about five thousand or so writers wanting to beat five or so guys who like nothing better in life than winning.

Writers like to write. CEOs like to win. I think CEOs like winning more than they like money.

It just happened that this time the writers don’t want to be beaten so badly. So now it’s a fight to win. If we get what we think is a “fair” share we win. The CEOs who I suspect are now surprised that they are not completely dictating this negotiation still plan on winning.

These five or so guys will now be looking to give us the worst deal possible that they can make us accept.

I don’t think greed is at issue here.

The “Strike a Deal” group is trying to help THEMSELVES. Just like the WGA. Just like the AMPTP. Just because you THINK it harms your cause (I really don’t get why…other than Josh is vehemently against it so it must be bad) doesn’t mean they should shut it down. A little absurd, no?

They are just asking for both parties to do a deal and be reasonable. Somehow this is inflamatory.

Stooge

Richmond,

How many CEO’s do you know? You act like you hang out with them all the time. Seriously, this is real life, not what you see in the movies.

Do you understand that these are public corporations? CEO’s answer to shareholders. You may be a shareholder…I don’t know. But these people care first and foremost over the bottom line. If you really think they are just playing a game…wow.

Winning?! No one is winning. This isn’t a game, as you said.

And, seriuosly, ask if Josh Olson doesn’t like to “win.” What, writers just like losing? So silly.

Yes, they are trying to give you the worst possible deal that you will accept. You are trying to get the BEST possible deal that THEY will accept. It’s called a negotiation.

You are probably right about the fact that greed isn’t an issue at all. Just making money.

Really, I chose to work in the “win-win” paradigm. Zero-sum games don’t work for me for the long term.

Your post is so childish. This is real stuff, man. You need to inform yourself. Take a moment. Try and be objective.

Stooge

Stooge -

“Johnny - at least Craig is lucid enough in his posts so that we can pick up on apparent contradictions.”

Are you trying to be funny?

See, in my eyes you lost the privilige of being taken seriously when you asked what the difference was between people chatting on a street corner and people chatting on a blog… comparing salaries as if making more money than you lessened people’s entitlement to fight for what they deserve sealed the case.

At this point your posts are so random and incongruous, I’m surprised people still reply to you in earnest.

Stooge,

““Strike a Deal” is valid. There.”

Yes, it is. But it doesn’t make it the best method to support their cause. Hence this debate.

“Why do you have a problem with labor organizing to further their interests?”

I don’t. I have a problem when they organize and it doesn’t further their interests and in fact hurts not only their interests, but that of the tertiary groups they support (being, in this case, the WGA).

The WGA can be accused of the same problem. They have organized. They have hurt not only themselves, but tertiary groups they (in word) support. But, the difference, is their methods, it appears, are acting to further their cause.

“Or are writers the only laborers that are allowed to organize?”

No.

“Or are people only allowed to organize if they support and agree with you?”

Sometimes your humanity overwhelms you.

Josh Richmond said:

The Strike a Deal Rally WILL hurt WGA membership.

I think it will certainly hurt us if we don’t show up. If the writers came out in force to show their support of those who’ve gotten caught in the cross-fire of this strike, it might actually help us.

We work with these people. They help turn our words on a page into something more. Why shouldn’t we come out and walk with them and say, hey, we really want a deal too? I don’t get the outrage over this rally.

I also don’t get the attacks against Working AD. Just because he’s not comfortable using his real name doesn’t make him a troll. Since I’m using my real name, can I just vouch for him or something?

Working AD,

Josh was spitting shit, but he wasn’t JUST spitting shit. This is more in line with the classic Josh. Hidden under the shit is a genuine argument.

Of course he’s asking a lot of the reader he insults to see past the shit, but at least he’s trying to address your points.

Just wait until his tact becomes pure shit (possibly the next time he posts, directed at Craig and Stooge and maybe a jab at me and my youth).

Josh gets as good as he gives and sometimes he gets it worse (that Louise B post is still up BTW).

Name calling, especially in this forum, is less than personal and your skin should be thick because your anonymity gives you an extra layer.

A troll accusation, although offensive, is just like calling you a dickhead. It’s meaningless in the larger context. You’re not a dickhead btw.

That people are coming to your defense is wonderful, but those same people allowed Josh to be called an anti-Semite and others to be harassed in similar, more invasive, and very personal ways.

See, KristenR has it right.

The outrage is in line with the other general outrage voiced on this site from the hardliners. It’s more of a “if you don’t 100% accept that the WGA has been abused and manhandled by the AMPTP then you are the enemy.” There can be no deviation from this script. So, if the other movement tries to take a middle of the road approach by not taking sides necessarily and asking that both sides equally make an effort to get a deal done, then they are evil. That’s the long and not so short of it.

It’s unfortunate because I think the latter hurts WAY MORE than the former.

Stooge

Stooge, I’ve known a whopping five CEOs and they all liked to win. Played “Balderdash” with Barry Gordy and he set the game up to win by making sure he could best “explain the game” by starting first - giving him a distinct advantage.

“This is real life and not what you see in the movies…”

I hope this is real life and I’ve never seen a movie about a Writer’s strike and hope I don’t have to sit through one in the near future.

“CEOs answer to shareholders.”

Well said. CEOs answer to share holders once in their tenure: when they get fired. Unless you call their press conferences or confrence calls with Wall Street answering to shareholders. Answering once to someone in your life is not much to brag about…

Do I think CEOs care about the bottom line…? I do. But caring and what drives someone are two different things. I stand by what I said. CEOs like to win. They are more interested in winning than the bottom line, or the hordes of cash they earn. I think this is easy to observe. I hardly think this is a novel observation. I attach no moral significance to it. However, I hope you don’t want to cast CEOs as knights in shining Armor riding into battle to protect their plebeian shareholders…

“Writers like to lose…” I don’t think writers like to lose, but I think writers “take a lot” in order to make a living in this town and are not interested in fighting unless they feel they’re being gouged… they’d rather watch a movie, TV show, or write one…

“Zero- sum…” This won’t be a zero sum negotiation if the WGA gets a fair deal.

“My post is childish.” Not sure how? But I’m sure you’ll be happy to explain.

“This is real.” If it’s not, then wake me up.

“You need to inform yourself.” Thanks for the platitude. Here’s one for you: Everyone should keep good hygiene.

Kristen R:

“I think it will certainly hurt us if we don’t show up…”

The platform is wrong and it’s too late to change it… The name is even wrong. CHange it to, Strike A Fair Deal, AMP… I’ll come out.

I think this is easy to ob

I can’t wait for the hardliners response to Kristen. Maybe the tried and trued “you are clearly a stooge” or one of my favorites “so naive…if you were as smart as me, you’d see through this obvious smoke screen created by AMPTP operatives.”

Stooge

AD,

“Josh, you seem to be reacting emotionally to what I have tried to tell you here.”

Huh. And you seem to be missing the fact that I was familiar with this group before you ever mentioned them. Any illusions you’d created about where you stand were shattered when you endorsed this organization.

Let me repeat - the only function they serve (intentionally or not) is to undermine the writers’ strike. That’s it. That’s all.

“Further, you have gone back on what you said yesterday, when I explained the reasons why assistant directors do not publicly come out and shake their fists at their employers.”

I haven’t gone back on it. I said then and I say now, I understand it. Unfortunately, it still costs you certain things - the ability, for instance, to insist something is true because you assert it would be one. You can only trade on the integrity of your name when you HAVE a name.

“If you feel that anyone who goes to that rally is somehow your enemy, that’s your opinion. “

Nope. But you’re now actively twisting what I’ve said to give a false impression of what is a very simple, very clear point.

“I wish you could accept that, but it sounds like you’re too wound up to calmly discuss this.”

Heh. I’m not wound up about this at all. Especially this.

“If you actually find something - like sponsorship by one of the moguls, or statements that swing to the AMPTP, then I’ll be the first to say it’s a bad idea to go there.”

Ducking entirely my point about how irrelevant that is. Even if they WERE sponsored by the AMPTP, you’d never find a link, and they’d obviously never make any pro-AMPTP statements. What you’ll get is what you see - a bunch of disingenuous statements about how we’re stuck in between these two battling entities, and wouldn’t it be nice if they’d both come together and end this hell we’re enduring?

“I asked before for you to do the right thing, and I’ll ask again.”

I’m doing the right thing, thanks. I’ve stopped writing. I get up every day and go on the line and march. I do it for me, I do it for my fellow writers, I do it for you, and I do it because it’s right.

Like I said… you’re welcome.

Craig,

“All that should matter here are the arguments made.”

“I promise you they’re a legitimate organization” is not an argument, Craig. It’s a statement that trades on the integrity of the speaker. I’m not attacking ANYONE when I say that posting anonymously means you abrogate the right to expect that such statements will be taken seriously.

“WorkingAD is neither morally questionable nor a troll, and I frankly find it disgusting that he’s been attacked in this manner. He’s one of the most interesting, thoughtful and respectful commenters I have.”

Yup. And he’s supporting an organization whose sole purpose is to undermine the WGA strike, and pretending he doesn’t understand that.

Scott,

Nothing to worry about, and I appreciate your honesty. The problem with Stuiec’s statement is that it assumes that the WGA isn’t highly incentivized to end this strike as soon as possible. The implicit statement that both sides are equally culpable in this situation is patently absurd.

MLBPA made a GREAT analogy when he/she said it was like rallying for the Nazis and Jews to sit down and work their shit out.

Supporting the AMPTP isn’t the best way to ensure this strike ends quickly, and it sure as hell isn’t the best way to ensure that we - and, eventually, you - get the best deal possible.

Josh,

“I don’t think greed is at issue here.”

Of course it’s not. We’re not even close to asking for what we deserve, let alone more. We’re asking for the tiniest piece of the action. It is, frankly, embarrassing to have to strike for so little.

Kristen,

“I think it will certainly hurt us if we don’t show up. If the writers came out in force to show their support of those who’ve gotten caught in the cross-fire of this strike, it might actually help us.”

The turnout for this thing is gonna be really small. If we show up to “support” it, we’ll legitimize what they’re doing.

On my way home from the Time Warner building picket, yesterday, I ran into a friend on the rigging crew of a feature shooting a few blocks away. He and his IA colleagues were very encouraging and supportive. Anecdotal, perhaps, and, yes, these guys weren’t yet unemployed but I think it points to the reality that most people don’t subscribe to Stooge’s, this-is just-about-money-both-sides-are-greedy theory. I think most people feel that a negotiation in which one side declares its terms valid simply because it has the power to force them to be accepted, might come up a little short in the fairness department.

On the other hand, human beings are not well known for their pursuit of long-term interests at the expense of instant gratification. I’m sure there are many who believe the WGA’s cause to be just but would still rather see them take a poor deal if will help them make next month’s car payment. Even if it hurts their own P&H benefits and diminishes their own future collective bargaining power. I understand the Strike A Deal sentiment, I feel for people who fear losing what they have. I am in deep trouble, myself, if the strike goes another 8 weeks. But I can’t help but agree with those who sense at least a subtle, even if unintended, blame the victim undertone to it.

Stooge,

You sure as hell are a hardliner when it comes to hardliners.

Do you want to debate issues or do you want to fight?

Richmond,

So your basic argument is Writer’s like to win as much as CEO’s, but they have to work harder and eat more shit to do it?

Also…I guess the way you put it…what you are asking for is fair…what the AMPTP is asking for is not…this is not a negotiation, but a list of demands by the WGA to be met 100% by the AMPTP. Damn. I guess that settles it. Those jag off Strike A Dealers. They don’t get the righteousness of the WGA. So silly.

I can imagine Josh Richmond negotiating on behalf of the WGA:

“Hello AMPTP death merchants. I know you only wish to “win” here. So, I offer you this, in good faith, accept all of our demands 100%. How is this not a win for you?”

Stooge

SML,

I want to debate issues. And I have…very sincerely and with a point of view that is different than a below the line or writer. Any other actions are pure weakness on my part and I am ashamed of myself when I indulge.

I think both sides should compromise. That’s all. I could care less if the AMPTP “wins”, whatever that even means. Trust me, before this, if I saw Josh Olson in the same room as Peter Chernin, I’d want to talk to Josh Olson. I chose this industry because I like the product (I am a fan), not because I like CEO’s. Who likes big corporations and CEO’s? My motive is quite clear…I want to keep my job. To me, that means this strike needs to end before February. If that meant the WGA got every single thing it wanted, I would be just as happy. In many ways, I am the most objective person in this room.

My entire motive in posting on this board (other than the stupid shit I say sometimes that is petty), is to get writers to realize this is a complicated business and that the AMPTP is dealing with real issues as opposed to the paranoid musings of crazed, fiction writer. Once writers can get past the idea that the AMPTP’s sole goal is to screw them, then I think true progress can be made and the strike can end. That’s what I’m here failing to do.

Stooge

“Writer’s like to win as much as CEOs” NO, they don’t like to win as as much. We’re distinctly different animals. The AMPTP have dragged us out of our dens because of their negotiating stance…

“What the AMPTP is asking for is not fair…” No, it’s not. And I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone to say that it is fair - I don’t think the AMPTP would be caught dead saying it’s “fair” in one of their own statements. At this point in the public arena, they’d be opening themselves up to ridicule and they know it.

Stooge, hire a writer to do your dialog.

Stooge,

Yes, but that is not the debate at hand.

The debate at hand is whether or not Strike a Deal’s methods are the best not only for their own purposes but for the WGA’s.

(Also, I answered some of your concerns at 12:20)

“What you’ll get is what you see - a bunch of disingenuous statements about how we’re stuck in between these two battling entities, and wouldn’t it be nice if they’d both come together and end this hell we’re enduring?”

Please, Josh, please stop. You can’t truly mean this stuff. You also can’t honestly believe this wont alienate some people, regardless.

I don’t get why that kind of a statement is at all disingenuous. It’s a whole lot more so than you saying you don’t get paid fairly. And I like how you set this Strike a Deal group up so that they are damned either way. No one can prove that they aren’t supported by the AMPTP because the AMPTP is way too clever to be found out by anyone. This doesn’t at all strike you as part of a story line from one of your scripts? It’s just out there, man.

Are you at all a reasonable person?

Do what Kristen said. Go march WITH them. Go make their cause your cause. Usurp even if you don’t believe it to be so. That’s the clever thing to do. Stand with them and make statements like “we are all standing here demanding that the AMPTP strike a fair deal.” What, you think some BTL is gonna say “actually, Josh, that isn’t why we are here…we wont BOTH sides to strike a fair deal.” You know I’m right. Instead, you just push people away. Not smart.

Stooge

At first glance, Strike A Deal appears to be a scam.

At second glance, Strike A Deal appears to be a scam.

At third glance, Strike A Deal appears to be a scam.

At fourth glance, Strike A Deal appears to be a scam.

The only thing that can be served by this rally is some of the disdain the public is currently heaping on the AMPTP gets shifted to the WGA.

It would seem that the terrible PR the AMPTP has gotten from this strike has motivated them to come back to the table and negotiate.

So trying to weaken the position of the Guild strengthens the studios, and ensures that this either lasts longer, or that the writers get a crappier deal.

The assertion that the Guild doesn’t care about the plight of everyone who works in this town is silly, and it’s insulting.

We’re in the fourth week of the strike, and there is exactly one group of people who have been completely put out of work. Writers.

If you’re in the IA, and you want this strike to end soon and fairly, it’s very easy to come out and march with writers, and show your solidarity with us.

Or you can try to undermine us, and go to a rally that serves only to equate us with the people we’re striking against.

It’s hilarious that all over town, people are seeing through this organization, but at The Artful Writer, they’re actually debating whether or not it’s legitimate.

What shall we debate next? The legitimacy of Milli Vanilli? Whether or not Clifford Irving faked Howard Hughes’s autobiography?

Working AD, you have come across as pretty bright here. But when you endorsed this transparent sham, you made it clear that you do not support us or the strike at all. I guess you thought that people were so stupid they wouldn’t see right through it, but we’re not.

Craig, your blind hatred of Olson has gotten in the way of whatever sense you may have, because you’ve just acknowledged that this site is a friendly haven for people who want to undermine the strike. I don’t think you meant to do that, but you did it.

Kudos, sir.

SML,

I read the 12:20. I can’t argue with anything you said except that the organization is acting against it’s interests. I get that the publicity is bad for the WGA in that it casts it as equally responsible…but that’s not spin. That’s the truth. Saying one side is responsible is spin. So perhaps against what the WGA is trying to do PR-wise, but not against themselves.

STRIKE A DEAL doesn’t inherently hurt your cause unless you let it.

Josh Richmond - you think the AMPTP reps are out there arguing this isn’t a fair deal?! What’s their PR campaign “this deal sucks, but so do writers?” I can’t keep responding to this stuff. You can’t be serious.

Stooge

SML, I hear what you’re saying and I appreciate it. I personally don’t go for name-calling at anyone, whether I agree with them or not. And I think that anyone who’s throwing around accusations of anti-Semitism in this kind of an argument is being pretty offensive. That’s my opinion. I just think we can make our arguments better than that.

Josh, you may not believe me, but I’ve been consistent in my posts here. I’m not trying to pull the wool over your eyes or anyone else’s. If you think otherwise, that’s your business. I was aware of Get Back In That Room for the past month, but didn’t see any need to bring it up, since there was nothing to discuss about it. It was just a good idea, and I’m happy they did it. The rally is something I’ve been aware of due to the UPM who told me about it - it’s not some dark secret, just some below the line people who want to make their voices heard.

By the way, if you feel that it’s only going to be a few people that are going to show up, why is it a threat to you? Let’s say only 20 people show up. Wouldn’t that be a statement of strength for the WGA in that most below the line people would be inferred to be supporting the strike? (Again, I base that on the idea you’re presenting that the rally is somehow anti-WGA when it is instead intended to help motivate both sides to find common ground.)

I’m not trying to twist anything you have said. I’m trying to find the actual points hidden behind the name-calling and the vitriol. You actually do have points, and I’m interested in hearing them - I’d just rather skip the personal attacks. And I’m sorry, but you do seem a bit wound up about this. If I’m mistaken, then please just be aware that’s the impression you’re giving.

And no, you haven’t done the right thing yet. You haven’t addressed the issue of the name-calling and the personal attack, which was not warranted and which I’m hoping you didn’t intend to make. And implying you’re on strike on behalf of the assistant directors is simply not going to fly here. I understand and appreciate that you’re on strike for the WGA, and that the DGA shares many issues. And if the DGA had been presented with the same ultimate situation, I’d be out on that picket line too. (And still may be, if things don’t improve in the next negotiation) But I don’t think it’s appropriate for you to imply I should thank you for this situation. I know you disagree, so let’s just leave it at that.

You are entitled to your opinion that the rally is not helpful to the WGA, but you are incorrect to say that its sole purpose is to undermine. You may believe that, but that doesn’t make it so.

I continue to maintain my belief that blaming EVERYTHING on the other side of a conflict is unhelpful. It’s a tendency in this country (hence the massive amount of litigation) but it’s a really unhealthy one. To say that the whole thing is all the AMPTP’s fault and that the WGA did nothing but present a reasonable offer is to ignore the parts of this that you don’t agree with.

Now, if the AMPTP and the WGA can find a fair contract that’s a win-win for everyone. WGA gets a fair contract and everyone goes back to work. And then the DGA goes in to talk, and I find out if I’m going to be picketing every day come July 1st.

Stooge, I like the executives I work with. I sincerely hope this strike is resolved before the holidays. I’d like to get back to work. I don’t want to see my friends lose their jobs. I think there is some corporate culture and peer pressure amongst some execs to blame this strike on the writers… that we’re the ones holding this town hostage. I don’t believe that’s the case. Not a single writer wants to see a person get fired - it’s not in our nature. Will a CEO can his staff members in order to win a negotiation?

I hope a fair deal is found before February and that you keep your job and that I get to go back to work.

Working AD,

Well said.

“We are not organized or sponsored by any union or guild. We are a spontaneous grass-roots outgrowth of the concern and desire of below-the-line industry professionals and vendors whose jobs, livelihoods and futures hang in the balance. We urge the WGA and the AMPTP to come to terms NOW to avoid lengthy and devastating damage to our industry, our city and our lives. LET’S GET BACK TO WORK!”

Maybe it hurts you…whatever. These are people who aren’t represented. How can you fault these guys for that statement? They also list real companies that are supporters…like say post production houses, etc. Despite what Josh says, you aren’t fighting for them at all. They get no residuals (he said differently).

Basically, this reminds me of when my parents got divorced when I was 7. They engaged in a bitter fight for the next well 20 years or so. During that whole time, if I didn’t blindly support one side, I was told by that particular side that I was unloyal and untrustworthy…a bad son. I maintained my objectivity. They both hated me for it.

So, yeah, these guys will probably get no love from you. Not a shock. But they are playing it down the middle. Too bad if “playing it down the middle” doesn’t jive with your goals.

Stooge

Stooge,

Shitty about your folks. Can’t really debate that analogy without sounding like a total dick… impressive move.

So, let’s debate a different piece of the problem:

How does Strike a Deal’s current methods aid their end goal?

Dan Z, I don’t even know where to begin with your post. It appears that you have not read my posts, and simply are assuming because I raised the Strike a Deal rally that this must mean I don’t have sympathy for the WGA issues here. I’m not going to repeat my earlier posts. Please just read them. Actually read them. You may find your conclusions are misplaced here.

You don’t know that the PR was the reason that the AMPTP went back to the table, or that if it was involved, that it was the only reason. I have already raised the DGA issue that may have contributed to the rekindling. But the biggest help, according to all parties, was the agent who stepped into the situation a la Lew Wasserman, and who all parties, not just Nikki Finke, believe is keeping these talks going.

You are incorrect to say that the rally is intended to weaken the position of the WGA or that it is a scam, and I ask that you provide your proof if you are going to make a blanket statement like that. It’s one thing to say it could have that effect in an unintentional way. But you’re stepping out into the idea that it is somehow an intentional one. I’d be curious where you’re getting that from. If it is actually the case, like I said before, I’ll be the first to denounce it. So please present your evidence - not suppositions.

And please don’t tell me that writers are the only group that is unemployed right now. Please do not insult the intelligence of my crew or that of the multiple television crews I know that are all unemployed right now and waiting to hear something positive.

Now, some IA members will be happy to march with the WGA, and they have done so. But many others are very upset with the WGA over their lost jobs. You don’t know how many arguments I had with crew members on my show and with ADs on other shows who wanted to blame everything on the WGA. And by the way, that included some of the Teamsters on my show. I guess it figures that where I got yelled at there for not putting all the blame on the writers, here I get yelled at for not putting all the blame on the AMPTP. On the other hand, this IS a WGA blog, so I should accept that, right?

Like I said, you may not believe me, but I don’t think anyone here is “stupid”. I think people are upset about the situation and they’re overreacting. Doesn’t make them “stupid”. Probably just makes them “human.”

Thank you for the sincere post, Richmond.

“Will a CEO can his staff members in order to win a negotiation?”

It doesn’t, unfortunately, work like that. The CEO is so far distanced from canning anyone that I don’t know that it even registers. He just signs a document prepared by his accountants and financial officers that reduces a budget. Also, remember that the CEO’s run huge corporations where the TV or Film divisions are just that…a division. Their focus on this isn’t the same as say yours or mine. It’s all bottom line. The chieftains of TV and Film are seeing profit margins decline and have all the guilds coming to them asking for more (rising costs). This is all they care about…how to maintain the profit margins they have.

Where it gets truly personal are when guys like say Jeff Zucker or Peter Roth (a true good guy) have to start executing those budget cuts. It’s probably those guys that are pushing to get this resolved because, hey, they are people too. They don’t like to have to fire people. But in the end they can say “I had no choice” and they are right. Everyone is somewhat insulated from that. The beauty (yuk) of a behemoth corporation.

Stooge

SML,

True…a little dirty pool. But I swear it’s the truth.

I think that the S.A.D. (haha…I just realized that’s the acronym…impressive…and, yes, I’m slow) folks succeed in making hardliners realize the collateral damage (even if you all know it’s there and I know you do). It’s an effective guilt technique and the more you see and hear it the harder it is to dismiss (look…everyone here probably cares about his fellow man). Josh is so worried about it becase he knows it’s a powerfull message and he felt his heart flutter (I kid, I am sure he’s a wonderful person). I think it’s much better for the negotiations if neither side believes it has the moral ground. Corporations naturally get this, because no one likes them. The WGA is, in my mind, slow to cop to this. So I think the movement can be effective in getting people to stop being irrational.

Stooge

AD,

“By the way, if you feel that it’s only going to be a few people that are going to show up, why is it a threat to you?”

It’s not a threat to me. That’s one of the reasons I’m not worked up about it. I’m just calling it what it is. What it OBVIOUSLY is.

“I base that on the idea you’re presenting that the rally is somehow anti-WGA when it is instead intended to help motivate both sides to find common ground.”

The fact that you keep saying this indicates you don’t understand for a minute what I’ve said here. Or you don’t want to.

“I’m trying to find the actual points hidden behind the name-calling and the vitriol.”

The only name I’ve called you is a Concern Troll, and I’ve expressed no vitriol at all. This group is absurd, and the discussion is silly. As Dan Z pointed out, this may be the only place in all of LA where people are seriously debating whether or not this group is anything but an attempt to undermine our strike. Seriously, dude - I know at least a dozen IA members who forwarded me these peoples’ e mails, all expressing disbelief that something so transparently hostile to the strike could actually succeed.

” implying you’re on strike on behalf of the assistant directors is simply not going to fly here.”

Too bad. Because it’s true. We’re out there for every single person who works in this business, who gets residuals directly, or whose union gets residuals. Disagree? That’s fine. Doesn’t change the fact that that’s a motivating factor for a hell of a lot of us.

“You are entitled to your opinion that the rally is not helpful to the WGA, but you are incorrect to say that its sole purpose is to undermine. You may believe that, but that doesn’t make it so.”

Oh, I don’t believe it. I know it. So does anyone who’s not trying to spin the situation.

We’re at the table, negotiating. Even if we get every point we’re asking for, it’s still a pittance of what we should be getting. To act as though there are two equal and opposite forces here - which is what Strike A Deal clearly does - is ludicrously dishonest. Or profoundly ignorant.

The rally won’t do a thing to speed up negotiations, but if it actually draws a large crowd, all it stands to do is dishonestly paint the Guild in a bad light. That’s the only possible outcome. No one is unaware of the fact that people are out of work and the strike has an economic impact. We don’t need to be reminded, thanks. But you, apparently, could use a reminder that this strike is putting a lot of writers out of work, and believe it or not, many of them need the money.

Hey, I have an idea! Why not a rally to show your support for your fellow workers - us.

And seriously - every time you ignore my points for the sake of reiterating points I’ve already addressed, you make it clearer that you’re not at all concerned with any kind of truth.

Dan Z,

You’re off the mark.

The principles behind “Strike a Deal” seem fair enough - that BTL workers want this strike to end.

It’s the methods they’re using to communicate these principles that we’re debating.

Did you ever think that maybe the BTL workers aren’t aware that their demonstration symbolically equates the WGA with the AMPTP?

Did it ever occur to you that maybe they only have their experience to fall back on? That they’re scared and out of work and feel like they have no voice? That it might be the job of us, the writer, to console them and to point out that, “Hey, we know you’re hurting, but what you’re about to do will hurt all of us a hell of a lot more”?

It appears, Dan Z, you have committed the same crime you’re accusing the Strike a Deal supporters of committing - you’re arguing from a non-empathetic view point and are doing more harm than good.

Josh,

Why is your first assumption that “Strike a Deal” movement is anything more than what it is? A movement based solely on the interest of those who created it.

Just like our “movement” is based solely on our interests. No matter which way you want to spin it, we are fighting for ourselves. If it benefits others, which I think it will, then way to go us.

They are attempting to be heard, just like we are. And, quite frankly, what they’re saying falls directly in line with what we’re saying: “Let’s end this quick, get a fair deal, and go back to work.”

Do I think their methods are ideal? Obviously not.

Do their methods undermine our cause? Yes.

Do I think their methods come from a knowledgable attempt to hurt the WGA? Hell no.

Actus reus without mens rea, Josh, a crime does this not make.

Josh, your language even in your latest post still indicates you’re pretty upset about this, and I’m sorry about that.

But that doesn’t change that not everyone agrees with you on this subject. The fact that I state that I disagree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand what you’re talking about. But I think you know that.

I don’t know that you KNOW that the purpose of the rally is to undermine the WGA. We’ve already established that we disagree about that. I’m okay with that. That doesn’t mean an absolute right or wrong here - and I would hope you would acknowledge that.

And I’m glad you know a dozen IA people who said “what the hey” about the rally. I could name over a hundred who wanted to go rally at the WGA building, and I got into several “discussions” with people specifically to disabuse them of that idea. And to use your phrase, you’re welcome for that.

Disagreement isn’t spin. It’s disagreement, and adults deal with it all the time. I’m sure you and I can agree on that, at least.

Of course, if it makes you feel better to continue calling me names and accusing me of either not understanding the “truth” or trying to “spin” it, I suppose you’ll continue to do so. I just wish you wouldn’t.

Josh, your language even in your latest post still indicates you’re pretty upset about this, and I’m sorry about that.

But that doesn’t change that not everyone agrees with you on this subject. The fact that I state that I disagree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand what you’re talking about. But I think you know that.

I don’t know that you KNOW that the purpose of the rally is to undermine the WGA. We’ve already established that we disagree about that. I’m okay with that. That doesn’t mean an absolute right or wrong here - and I would hope you would acknowledge that.

And I’m glad you know a dozen IA people who said “what the hey” about the rally. I know over a hundred who feel differently, many of whom wanted to go rally at the WGA building, and I got into several “discussions” with people specifically to disabuse them of that idea. And to use your phrase, you’re welcome for that.

Disagreement isn’t spin. It’s disagreement, and adults deal with it all the time. I’m sure you and I can agree on that, at least.

Of course, if it makes you feel better to continue calling me names and accusing me of either not understanding the “truth” or trying to “spin” it, I suppose you’ll continue to do so. I just wish you wouldn’t.

Sorry for the double post. Was trying to edit and accidentally sent twice.

Hey all,

Just wanted you all to know that there was a very good turnout of WGA folks at the SOULA rally and march downtown today.

It was definitely a much smaller rally/march than the two that we WGA folks have put together. Maybe just a hundred folks or so. But the good news is that, I’d say, roughly half of those attendees were WGA folks in their (our) red shirts, with their (our) red picket signs, most of ‘em altered to read something to the effect of: “WGA supports SEIU.”

From my show, Family Guy, we had about 5 writers present (including myself), and there were a couple American Dad folks there as well, including one of the creators and showrunners, Matt Weitzman, who was banging on a drum the whole time. And I saw several other familiar faces from the Fox picket line I’ve been working all month, in addition to dozens of other fellow writers from elsewhere around town, one of whom (I believe he was a representative from the WGA labor outreach committee, or something like that) was handed the mic and delivered the message that we, the WGA, stand with them in thier fight.

All in all, rest assured, the WGA put in a good showing downtown today, and it appeared to be very well appreciated by the SEIU reps and the security guards, themselves, who, of course, are fighting for the right to organize and bargain collectively. In fact, several of the security guards and SEIU reps made a point of going writer by writer, through every single one of us, to shake our hands and thank us for marching with them.

In short, I was proud to be a WGA member, today.

Anyhoo, see you all at the Sony lot tomorrow, and then back to our regular pickets on Monday!

Patrick Meighan Culver City, CA

Patrick,

Great.

So, um, are you going to march with “Strike a Deal”?

“Patrick, Great. So, um, are you going to march with “Strike a Deal”?”

I dunno.

Before I decide on that, I think I’m gonna have to learn a bit more about SAD, its aims, what the march is expected to accomplish, and what, precisely, SAD is asking the WGA to do right now. (I checked the website that Working AD posted, and it’s very short on information).

If SAD is asking the WGA to immediately accept whatever the AMPTP is willing to offer (which, at the moment, is an unfair deal), then no, I’m not going to march.

Patrick Meighan Culver City, CA

SML,

“Why is your first assumption that “Strike a Deal” movement is anything more than what it is? A movement based solely on the interest of those who created it.”

Jesus.

Read my posts again.

I haven’t assumed anything. I’ve said quite clearly, I don’t CARE if they’re legitimate or not. They’re serving no purpose save undermining our strike.

“Just like our “movement” is based solely on our interests. No matter which way you want to spin it, we are fighting for ourselves. If it benefits others, which I think it will, then way to go us.”

Get in it, THEN tell me what’s motivating those of us who are actually involved. I don’t mind armchair quarterbacking from non-writers, but from Guild members, it’s tiresome. From where you sit, there’s writers, then there’s everyone else. Twenty years in the business, I see a whole bunch of folks getting shafted by management, and our particular segment on the front lines of the fight.

“Do their methods undermine our cause? Yes.”

End of discussion, then. You agree with me.

“Do I think their methods come from a knowledgable attempt to hurt the WGA? Hell no.

Actus reus without mens rea, Josh, a crime does this not make.”

Great. Thanks for the lesson in the bleeding obvious. Now re-read my posts. I’ve addressed actions, dismissed motivations. You’re the one fixating on them. I don’t CARE what motivates this group. They are, as you acknowledge, undermining their strikes.

AD,

“Josh, your language even in your latest post still indicates you’re pretty upset about this, and I’m sorry about that.”

I’m not upset at all about this. I’m kinda amused, frankly. Mildly annoyed that you duck pretty much every point I’ve made in favor of reiterating your conviction that this rally is well intentioned and helpful, but not enough to go all jihad on your ass.

In fact, I should thank you, cos by bringing the subject of this farce up here, you motivated me to get busy finding out more about these people, and to talk to more folks about them.

As ever, the world tells a VERY different story than the internet.

Which is almost always the case….

Josh Olson wrote:

“As ever, the world tells a VERY different story than the internet.”

Josh, if you’ve actually heard some sort of story that S.A.D. is actually a front organization or something, please share it with us instead of just making a vague ominous allusion. I don’t mean that sindely— if you’ve heard that this isn’t actually the grassroots organization it’s purporting to be, I’d like to know.

Can we get some examples of management shafting? Who is “management” exactly? Who are the shafters! Give me names. I want you to burn some bridges Olson. Show us some of that bravado!

Stooge

Am I crazy in saying that, at least for TV writers, “management” = fellow writers (ok, sometimes some non-writing producer).

Patrick - who picked you up and plopped you on the FAMILY GUY set? How were you chosen? Who manages you on a daily basis?

Stooge

Josh,

From Dan Z:

“At first glance, Strike A Deal appears to be a scam.”

Also:

“Working AD, you have come across as pretty bright here. But when you endorsed this transparent sham, you made it clear that you do not support us or the strike at all. I guess you thought that people were so stupid they wouldn’t see right through it, but we’re not.”

From you:

“As Dan Z pointed out, this may be the only place in all of LA where people are seriously debating whether or not this group is anything but an attempt to undermine our strike. Seriously, dude - I know at least a dozen IA members who forwarded me these peoples’ e mails, all expressing disbelief that something so transparently hostile to the strike could actually succeed.”

Also:

“They’re serving no purpose save undermining our strike.”

You support Dan Z who believes SAD to be a scam (which he nor you for that matter can prove). You accuse SAD of being hostile (which, again, you have not proved this intention - and their methods aren’t necessarily proof of intended hostility towards us). And then you dismiss their fight by assuming “they’re serving no purpose save undermining our strike.”

They’re fighting for THEMSELVES. They believe they’re serving their own purpose. It seems to be coming from a genuine place.

You interpret their action as hostile. I interpret it as misguided.

Hostility implies: negative intent, negative result. Misguided implies: positive intent, negative result.

And before you say I’m wrong, why don’t you go back and read your own posts.

Patrick,

That’s a wonderful answer.

A question:

When people say that something someone says or does will (or may or is intended to) “undermine the strike” … what, exactly, do they believe will be undermined?

• Ted

Interesting. For the first three weeks of the strike, the AMPTP refused to return to the bargaining table even though the WGA continually asserted a willingness to negotiate.

Now, when a group of people whose livelihoods are disrupted by the WGA-AMPTP contract dispute call a rally to ask for fruitful and diligent negotiations, they’re “undermining the strike.”

I thought the entire purpose of the strike was to persuade the AMPTP to engage in fruitful and diligent negotiations.

Stephen Stills said it best:

Paranoia strikes deep/Into your heart it will creep

It starts when you’re always afraid…

Josh, I think I’ve carefully addressed your points. Please specify something you think I have “ducked”, because as far as I’m concerned, I have responded pretty thoroughly.

If name-calling is a sign of amusement, that’s a bit alarming to me.

If you or Dan Z actually have some REAL info regarding SAD not being a genuine grassroots effort, please provide it. I agree with Clifford. If I were to see proof of a scam, I’ve already told you I’ll be the first to get the word out about it. My information comes from a DGA UPM of the show that filmed next door to mine before the shutdown. I also discussed this with our Key Grip, with a Post Production man on a third show, with the 1st AD of a fourth show, and with the script supervisor of a fifth show. If you have sources telling you things about this group, I can circulate information very quickly - but not rumors. I got burned on that once, and I won’t do that again.

Here is an alert about a group that (I can assert with total certainty) is plotting and actively working to undermine the strike.

It’s the WGA Negotiating Committee.

Right now, they are in a room with representatives of the AMPTP, trying to come up with a way to take the strike away from the writers. Their machinations are geared to taking away the very reason for the strike itself. The fact that they are conspiring with the other side to do so reveals just how nefarious and traitorous this organization is.

You had better watch out, because if you’re not on your guard, the WGA Negotiating Committee is going to come to you sometime soon with a devil’s instrument that they’ll call a “tentative agreement,” and they’ll try to sucker you into doing something called “ratification” (which is only “gratification” without the “g”, which should tell you that they only want it for their pleasure). Don’t fall for it — not if you want to keep your strike strong.

Stuiec,

Without stealing your righteous thunder, SAD has the potential to undermine a movement (our strike) which, I do believe, it supports.

Their march will act in symbolic opposition to ours. They will take the role of the sympathetic, cast the WGA in a very similar light to the AMPTP, and, well, undermine not only our cause, but their own.

Their movement does nothing to harm the AMPTP. Why? Because the AMPTP is already struck. In regards to the AMPTP, SAD’s actions are redundant. In regards to the WGA, their actions are potentially harmful. And from my understanding, SAD doesn’t want to harm us.

Ted,

See my post above(to Stuiec). Not sure this explicitly answers your question…

SML wrote:

Their march will act in symbolic opposition to ours. They will take the role of the sympathetic, cast the WGA in a very similar light to the AMPTP, and, well, undermine not only our cause, but their own.

Ya think so? Then take KristenR’s sound advice and co-opt them. Show up to the rally in force and thank them for their support. Let the public see that the WGA rank and file is foursquare behind negotiating a fair deal that ends the strike and puts the town back to work. Let the Strike A Deal crowd know that you’re ready to end the strike just as soon as a fair contract is negotiated (which, I believe, is called “striking a deal”).

Because then it really will only be the AMPTP not on camera saying it supports a fair deal.

Even if it is undermining your movement, I don’t see how Josh or Dan Z or whomever else is helping combat that in anyway.

But really…aren’t you just arguing that the truth undermines your movement? That if people were reminded that there are innocent people getting caught in the middle here (no one is inventing that) that it would reflect poorly on the WGA’s and AMPTP’s negotiating tactics? A strike is an aggressive move. You have to be prepared for the fallout.

The fact is…you want people to see this battle the way you want them to see it. Great marketing effort and go for it, but let’s not go around Swift Boating people or groups of people.

Stooge

scott_stambler said:

With that in mind, and returning to the latest hot bed - I think it’s worth quoting Stuiec (most of the time)

Thanks, Scott. And I vow I won’t rest until you’ve upgraded to “all of the time”! ;)

SML’s 4:20 post was great. Any coincidence with that time? I think not.

Stooge

Stooge,

You do little to assure me you have an open mind.

Stuiec,

Same goes for you.

But I persevere.

Although the WGA holds a lot of the blame for this strike’s occurrence, they hold little blame for its endurance.

And, yes, let’s do what Kristen suggests. Let’s repurpose SAD’s cause to suit our own needs. Raadunkculus.

Patrick, you might contact the WGAw leadership and find out if they want to send a delegate (perhaps only with observer status, since this is an AFL-CIO event) to this:

L.A. Workers: The Fight for Good Jobs Hyatt Regency Century Plaza Monday, Dec. 3, 2007

This Congress is crucial because 2008 presents us with unprecedented challenges and opportunities - a year in which more than 337,000 workers - belonging to 30 local unions will re-negotiate their union contracts - the largest number of workers in the history of the LA Labor Movement. These workers hail from key sectors reflecting the core of L.A.’s economy. They include actors, longshoremen, homecare workers, teachers and janitors.

At the same time over 30,000 port drivers, security officers, hotel workers, construction workers and LAX passenger services workers will continue their fight to move out of poverty by joining a union. And because 2008 will be a year filled with electoral races ranging from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to the Presidency of the United States, this Delegates Congress will be crucial in setting next years labor program which will combine, politics, organizing and contract fights all in The Fight for Good Jobs.

To represent your union as a delegate, please contact your local union. For further information please contact, Michelle Bumactao at 213-381-5611 or by e-mail at mbumactao@launionaflcio.org

Date: Monday, December 3rd

Time: 10-4

Location: Hyatt Regency Century Plaza

2025 Avenue of the Stars

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Clifford,

“Josh, if you’ve actually heard some sort of story that S.A.D. is actually a front organization or something, please share it with us instead of just making a vague ominous allusion.”

How many times do I have to say I make no assertions about who they are, nor do I care? My comment referred to the fact that every single person I’ve spoken to about this thing - whether they’re IA or WGA - perceived it to be what it was - an attack on our strike.

Working AD,

“You accuse SAD of being hostile (which, again, you have not proved this intention - and their methods aren’t necessarily proof of intended hostility towards us)”

Mother of God. They’re staging a rally that does nothing but foment hostility towards us by presenting us as accomplices of the AMPTP in putting everyone out of work. It’s like asking me to prove that the guy in the white makeup and striped shirt pretending to be caught in a tornado is a mime.

Well, okay. I can’t prove he’s a mime. But he IS a guy in white makeup and a striped shirt pretending to be caught in a tornado.

“You interpret their action as hostile. I interpret it as misguided.”

For the last time - please - I do not CARE whether they’re hostile or misguided. They’re WRONG and they can only hurt.

For the record - several of my friends who received their e mails wrote back to them, pointing out how poorly conceived their actions were, and how this not only didn’t help, but probably hurt the strike. These are IA crewmembers, people who were approached to join up. Not writers.

They got no response.

Ted,

“When people say that something someone says or does will (or may or is intended to) “undermine the strike” … what, exactly, do they believe will be undermined?”

Ooh. Good one. Ted wants to engage me in yet another argument about whether or not PR matters to our strike. He’s convinced - nay, he’s received a transmission from God - that it doesn’t. So he wants me to talk about how the message this sends to people - especially crew - presents us in a negative light, so he can claim that it doesn’t matter how we’re perceived by crew or anyone else.

I’ll pass, Ted. But nice try.

SML,

I blame overlap, but I missed your post commenting on the dreary anti-semite comments. So thanks for pointing that out. I’m hardly surprised they’re still up. Louise is a pal of Craig’s, and it’s hardly the first time that he’s allowed that level of libel to sit. Don’t let it judge your appreciation of Craig, though. He’s still a lovely human being with tremendous moral standards.

SML wrote:

And, yes, let’s do what Kristen suggests. Let’s repurpose SAD’s cause to suit our own needs. Raadunkculus.

It’s a pretty standard technique for leveraging the effort of another group to create additional support for your own.

I guess it’s too big an idea for you. Sorry to bother you with it.

Sorry, Josh, I misunderstood you, because when you wrote you “[got] busy finding out more about these people,” that implied to me that you had actually found out more about these people.

Clifford,

“Sorry, Josh, I misunderstood you, because when you wrote you “[got] busy finding out more about these people,” that implied to me that you had actually found out more about these people.”

Had I found out anything definitive, do you really think I wouldn’t have posted it?

Okay, enough with Josh.

I’ve banned him. Practically every single comment he makes violates our simple rule.

Dan Z, Patrick Meighan…and everyone else who is capable of criticizing me or anyone else without being uncivil, your comments are always welcome.

Nuff said about that.

Josh Olson wrote:

Ooh. Good one. Ted wants to engage me in yet another argument about whether or not PR matters to our strike. He’s convinced - nay, he’s received a transmission from God - that it doesn’t. So he wants me to talk about how the message this sends to people - especially crew - presents us in a negative light, so he can claim that it doesn’t matter how we’re perceived by crew or anyone else.

If PR matters to the success of the strike — which I personally believe it does, crucially — then you ought to consider why it is that a group of below-the-line workers, vendors and other people whose livelihoods have been disrupted by the strike are willing to organize a public rally that (in your view) puts the WGA in an unfavorable light.

Perhaps too much of the WGA’s attention has been focused on why those people should support the WGA and the strike unwaveringly and without question. Perhaps the WGA’s PR campaign to date hasn’t paid enough attention to communicating to those people what the WGA’s attitudes are toward them and why the WGA’s fight IS their fight.

It’s easy to denounce them as ignorant, misinformed, malign, or panicked. It’s harder, but far more fruitful, to engage them and try to get them solidly on the WGA’s side. (It would have been easier if that effort had started in earnest in January of this year, but that’s water under the bridge.)

SML,

How am I not being open minded? I have agreed with you on many occassion. I simply disagree that SAD undermines you in any way that your own activities don’t already (and, look, if you can’t agree that WGA shares some blame here then this is pointless…that’s the Josh camp). Reality is what it is.

Stooge

While I think stuffing a sock in Josh’s mouth is probably the best thing that could happen to the WGA (I am sincere about that) and I think that he had no interest in seriously debating the issues, I am going to just state this once and never mention it again: I don’t think he should be banned.

Ok…not my decision and I don’t know what other comments aren’t making it and, shoot, I’m probably toeing the ban-line myself.

So, it’s said. Much respect either way, Craig.

Stooge

Craig,

I just knew if I prayed long enough…

But seriously, the reason why I stopped even addressing Josh is because it took me awhile (shame on me) to figure out that his intentions weren’t pure. He repeatedly wrote that all he wanted to do was provide another voice on screenwriting ideologies but obviously that wasn’t true. He just wanted to scream and cause a ruckus for the sake of causing a ruckus.

Which isn’t helpful.

He’s a smart guy so I’m pretty sure he knew that acting like John Lithgow from Footloose, or John Lithgow from Kinsey, or hell, John Lithgow from 3rd Rock From The Sun wouldn’t sway anyone.

It would just cause a ruckus.

And while truthfully, if it was up to me, I wouldn’t have banned him (personally, I think it’s a little too easy—eventually everyone would’ve have realized he was NEVER interested in having an actual discussion), I’m certainly not sorry to see him go.

Let’s just have a moritorium on the whole Josh thing, because there’s a big wide world of ideas and interesting people out there, and I’d rather discuss ANY of them other than Josh.

Any of them.

Craig, now that you’re done with shooting, or close to it, I’d be curious to know, if you’re willing to discuss it, how much not being able to write on your movie during the strike compromised/complicated things for you. Are there scenes that you’re going to wish for the rest of your life that you could have punched up? Were there awkward moments when you wanted to change a line but couldn’t?

Uh, guys, I think something far more interesting just happened…

AMPTP just confirmed what Nikki Finke had posted. I didn’t want to say anything until I could confirm it but I’d say that posting on the AMPTP website is pretty good corroboration that SOMETHING happened. Doesn’t mean whether it’s good or bad. Just that something did in fact happen at the talks today.

Sounds like the AMPTP put forward a proposal on internet content, streaming, digital, etc. Looks like they were ready with this to go on their website right after they presented it at the negotiations. WGA team has apparently asked to look it over until Tuesday - presumably to figure out exactly what they were just offered. Looks like Tuesday is a mutually scheduled meeting, so talks continue after the weekend.

Further, I have read from another source (Hollywood Daily) that they have confirmed that the mediator is pretty much out of the loop now. He was contacted at his office today, not at the negotiations. Mediation has apparently been done by the agent who put everyone together.

Really bad joke - he doesn’t get 10 percent of the deal, does he? And here come the flames, right?

Nice, AD. I think this is all progressing nicely.

Here’s to a deal done before the new year!

Stooge

Stooge,

SAD is working from a false assumption. It believes the AMPTP and the WGA are equally responsible for the ENDURANCE of this strike. Through the WGA’s words and actions it appears they want this strike to end as quickly as possible. Through the AMPTP’s words and actions they don’t want this strike to end as quickly as possible.

The truth doesn’t undermine our movement because the truth is the WGA holds little responsibility for the ENDURANCE of this strike (not yet anyway). The false assumption that we’re to blame for SAD’s prolonged predicament undermines our efforts because it is not true.

Are the WGA and the AMPTP equally responsible for the strike’s occurrence? I think so. But that’s not what we, or SAD, appears to be debating. If they are, well, I’d say where the hell were you when Tom Short stood up all those months ago?

God…Finke is just impossible to read. I feel like telling her to get a room…with herself.

Day 3 “stalemate”…Day 4 “new proposal!”…each under the “TOLDJA” banner. Priceless.

Stooge

Kevin -

I’m breaking my own little vow here by addressing you again… but fuckit.

What a cheap shot to come out of the woodworks to take jabs at Olson when you know he has no way of replying.

What you call a causing ruckus, others see as providing balance.

Craig -

I thought there was only one rule - the be civil thing. How do Josh’s posts violate that rule?

Moratorium, Johnny. Civility is in the eye of the beholder, and in this one small corner of the internet I’m doing the beholding.

Let’s move on.

As you very fairly say “it appears” that way to you. The AMPTP wants nothing more than this strike to end (and, like the WGA, they have their hardliners…but as whole), but they aren’t going to capitulate to everything…just like the WGA wont and shouldn’t. I think it’s also fair that they have to worry about the use of the “strike weapon” as a tactic by other guilds and in the future. How they respond has great implications. Perhaps they only encourage more strikes if you resume negotiations the day after the strike. I think that was their main concern in waiting 4 weeks. I also think it truly was a cooling down period (after all, I am sure that the AMPTP reps were a little miffed when the WGA struck mid-negotiation). Plus, they were able to use the cover of “the Showrunners offered a deal.”

Endurance or cause…whatever. I don’t think that SAD necessarily cares. They just want a done deal and to be noticed.

But, and I really believe this, it’s all a blip on otherwise upward trajectory. Good times are ahead.

Stooge

“On The Verge.” Catchy.

Craig,

It’s wrong to ban Josh. And if you insist on banning him, remove all his posts and all the posts that have referred or will ever refer to him. Please.

In fairness, a person has a right to defend his or her name and opinion even under someone else’s roof (especially when that roof can be seen by public eyes).

And, btw, your advocacy that this is not a forum of free speech and your insistence on allowing Louise B and others like her to “publish” hate on this site holds you libel. Truly, legally libel.

Not Louise B or the others. The publisher. You.

Although Josh’s conclusions (specifically about you and Ted) are sometimes farfetched he bases those conclusions on the work contained within this site.

His insults are at times offensive. So are yours. So are most of ours.

He’s no better or worse than any of us.

Actually, he’s pig-headedly consistent. He’s done nothing different than what he’s always done for the two years I’ve been quietly reading this site. He even attaches his name so we can track down unrelated posts and call him an anti-semite.

You’re wrong. Really, really, really wrong. I hope you change your mind.

I only want to say that my post addressing Josh was being composed as Craig’s post banning him was being posted. I would not have asked for his comment had I known he would not be able to respond. I wish I could have engaged him in conversation, but I am fully supportive of Craig’s decision.

SML, I believe that Josh’s insistence on using the word “libel” was what got him banned. As Craig points out, a false allegation of libel is itsef libellous.

And Josh only insinuated that Craig did something libelous, whereas you’re stating it as a fact. What do you suppose the result will be?

Guys, please…I’m beggin ya…

Craig -

It’s just that banning your most outspoken critic kind of leaves a bad taste in the mouth, you know, like obviously he was on to something…

Besides being a bit of dastardly move.

By the way, y’all, there’s a new thread up. Change of topic, anyone?

Stooge,

Strangely, I think we’re seeing eye to eye.

The WGA will not capitulate. Nor will the AMPTP. They will negotiate. They will compromise. That’s what they’re doing (at least we all think so), right?

So, although SAD has the right to be heard, it appears both sides have already heard them. SAD wants this to end. WE ALL WANT IT TO END. That’s why both sides are negotiating. That’s why when I started this debate I said SAD’s argument was/is redundant.

As for the “good news”, I’m actually not very optimistic about it. From my limited understanding, their “movement” and the rhetoric they’re using in the press release (namely hard numbers as opposed to percentages) appears to be minor. Also, the four day study period by the WGA is not really a good sign. And, until I hear otherwise, the AMPTP just broke the press black out.

All these “movements,” from a my uneducated POV, read like the AMPTP is saying, “Hey everybody. Look at us. We’re being extra sweet. We’re going to throw out a number like 1.3 billion (I’ve never heard this number before) and then we’re going to add ten percent because we’re real nice. Oh, and yeah it’s weird that the WGA wants to delay this further than we need to, but we understand, because we’re understanding and sweet and nice.”

Or, simply, it feeds the idea that these re-talks were always a AMPTP swindle.

But I hope to hell I’m wrong.

Okay. AMPTP did not break the press black out:

http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=2615

SML,

You are, I think, being a little too cynical. They are meeting again on Monday. The AMPTP is trying to make it clear that things are still progressing even though they wont talk again until Monday. And, yes, it’s spin. But, you know, it’s still progress. Look, many of you thought the AMPTP was trying to completely screw you out of these revenue streams and here they are offering at least what is a taste. That is an enormous step. The “how much” is definitely easier to handle.

Stooge…headed over to the new thread.

Stuiec,

You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Is there a new thread? I don’t see it.

Look at the tone of the WGA’s release and AMPTP’s release.

You tell me which is more inflamatory. Honestly.

Btw, growth rate of the ENTIRE COMPANY is 10%. Not the studio divisions. That is disingenuous.

As is this:

“For streaming television episodes, the companies proposed a residual structure of a single fixed payment of less than $250 for a year’s reuse of an hour-long program (compared to over $20,000 payable for a network rerun). For theatrical product they are offering no residuals whatsoever for streaming.”

Rollback? Nothing has ever been paid for ad-based internet streaming. So unfair. Plus, who the hell thinks it’s fair to pay even close to the same rate for an interent broadcast as a network television broadcast, as if they were earning the same revenue. Plus, news flash, the cable residuals are less than the network residuals. I gotta tell you…this is just BS.

Stooge

Man I wish the blackout were still on.

Stooge

Stooge,

Me too.

stuiec -

so what are you saying?

That we should be afraid to speak up against the big dog for fear of being banned?

Craig -

See what’s happening? Folks are scared to speak their mind. Is that what you want? A blog replete with yaysayers who wave the mazin flag?

Or active debate by professional television and film writers?

Craig,

I agree with SML about the (ahem) banning thing … for what it’s worth and for how little my opinion matters, anyway.

Craig,

In the time you’ve been running this forum, you’ve let people accuse Olson of being a racist; you’ve personally posted disparaging rumors about him; and you’ve allowed people to attack the authorship of his film.

In spite of that, he has consistently refused to attack you for anything except the words you post here. While his posts are often vitriolic and hyperbolic (not to mention funny as hell), he was always consistently speaking from a passionate, informed and honest place that a lot of people share.

Calling his behavior uncivil and banning him is one of the most hypocritical things you’ve ever done here. He called people names and attacked your hypocrisy. You did much, much worse.

If saying this gets me banned, so be it. A few more of us, and you’ll have a forum full of nothing but mindless acolytes, self proclaimed “centrists” and anonymous AMPTP stooges.

They don’t need to buy you, Craig, you company man.

Sigh.

Craig,

“Sigh.”

Sigh no more, brother. It does little for my appetite.

Johnny Hartmann said:

That we should be afraid to speak up against the big dog for fear of being banned?

You know, this is a forum for writers. If the best that a poster can come up with is ranting, whining or emotional outbursts, it makes me doubt that poster’s ability to use words to make a point.

Aside from that, of course, is the simple fact that this is a forum operated by a private individual who is entitled to make and enforce the rules here. You are perfectly within your rights to start a blog of your own — perhaps “The Outraged Writer” is available as a name — and post whatever content you wish that isn’t slanderous, libellous or contrary to the law.

But it seems weak to try to play the victim card when you see someone 86’d from a place. “Scared to speak their mind”? Come on. If you’re scared to speak your mind because you don’t know how to do it without being offensive, you’re awfully timid as well as uncreative.

Johnny,

I too will break my vow of addressing you to say this:

I stopped talking to [Redacted] for the same reason I don’t talk to Ann Coulter (I had one mind blowing conversation with her) and between the both of them, they act EXACTLY the same.

The outrageous act got boring and old while the really, really sad part was when people actually listened and followed both of them. Dude, it was bad theatre. Coulter does it to sell books, [Redacted] does it because he’s incredibly bored. Either way, it was an ACT. But if hanging out with Coulter floats your boat I hear she’s performing a Sermon on the Mount to fix all those broken Jews.

Ok…vow back on.

Kevin A,

I liked you better when you weren’t a hypocrite.

You dance the same dance, bro. You just fricken’ danced it! Your theatrical displays are no better or worse than anybody else’s including [redacted]’s.

Although, I would actually say marginally worse. You did just compare him to Ann Coulter. Ann “FRICKEN” Coulter. The leathery-skinned biggot with eating problems.

Damnitty, damn, damn.

SML,

I liked myself better when I wasn’t a hypocrite, either.

And honestly, for me, I wasn’t making an analogy. I truly find [Redacted] and Ann Coulter incredibly similar. Not because I think [Redacted] is a racist (anyone who does is kind of out there) but because I find their tactics exactly the same. Honest Debate is something that most of us have, including you (I enjoy your even handed posts). But neither one of those jokers have it. It’s all about name calling and sometimes, funny quips.

Kevin,

You’re off, brother, way off base … I’m insulted at that comparison, I like you but you’re outa bounds on that one … it’s not fair to compare anyone to Coulter.

And SML is right, you’re gotten just as worked up as he has - so it is hypocritical of you to take this position. And fucking unfair to compare him to Coulter.

• Olson bases his arguments on ideas that can be fact checked … and he’s actually got a sense of humor.

But I don’t defend him because we’re of the same “political” bent … I defend him becuz his ideas make sense and check out. And Olson never dodges an argument. There are others here who cannot say that. No one else here can.

And as SML mentioned, Brother Olson is repeatedly attacked, more so than anyone else here … and he defends himself. Just as you have and I have. Olson just has a bigger target on his back -

And if you’re gonna ban someone for an offense, Craig, ban all who break that rule … hey, it’s your house, sure … do what you want with it, but since we’re all allowed to comment on everything within your rules, I’ll mention that I think this is bogus - there you go.

Kevin,

“Honest Debate is something that most of us have, including you”

On this site? No it’s not. There’s no honest debate here. But I think it’s ironic that a guy who’s physically threatened several people for expressing views he doesn’t like is throwing the “Ann Coulter” label around.

Have you noticed how nobody ever responds seriously to your attempts to make real points, Kevin? Craig mostly ignores you, because when you’re arguing on his side, your ideas are so badly presented and so thick-headed, they make him look bad.

And when someone points these things out to you, you threaten them.

You may be the only person here who’s a bigger hypocrite than Craig. And that’s saying a lot.

Kevin,

That’s a truth. But it doesn’t mean Josh or Ann should have a gag stuffed down their throats… well, maybe Ann.

Although Craig and Ted vehemently disagree with me, they have created a forum that advocates free speech.

When they stick their fingers in our maws, well, it makes me gag. It’s 150% more offensive than anything Josh, or you, or I, or, dare I say it, Louise B, and now Dan Z have ever done.

A little George Washington for you:

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

And Dan Z,

Calm the fuck down. You’re off the mark and you’re helping no one’s cause.

SML:

I agree they shouldn’t, which is why I believe Josh shouldn’t have been banned (as I stated earlier).

Joshua:

The difference is, even if you and I disagree, we can still do so as adults. I’ve definitely gotten worked up here as all of us have but at the very least we still start every discussion at a 1. You can’t call it debate when someone expresses an ideal and the response is at a 10 for no reason.

Either way, while we all agree he shouldn’t have been banned, I ain’t sorry to see him go.

Sigh all you want, Craig, but by banning Josh – out of the blue and without warning no less – you’ve shown your true colors.

And people are calling you on it.

One would think that finishing a movie on top of those seven figure quotes and six figure residual payments for big, shiny blockbusters would give you enough confidence to allow for critics – even harsh ones. But I guess with that incivility clause you’ve created your own little patriot act. What’s next on the agenda?

Close the comments section?

Kevin,

Fair enuff, but the Coulter line was too much -

As Jon Stewart said, it ain’t fair to compare Coulter to the Nazis … it ain’t fair to the Nazi’s.

Okay, closing comments here. Let’s try and get back to the substance of the blog if possible.