Who's in the WGA? [Archive] - Absolute Write Water Cooler

nmstevens

09-07-2007, 11:05 PM

Unions the world over are a total waste of time, run for the sole benefit of the people running the unions. That said, I realise that doesn't remotely answer your question, but this is rant-time.
:rant:

Unionisation seems to be at its worst in the US: thirty-three years ago, the UK was just as bad and so we went on general strike, the lights went out and lots of people suffered. The solution was to break the unions. The whole thing is silly crap: everyone knows it, but we live in such a ridiculously PC world that people don't like saying it. Where are these poor disadvantaged writers? The ones I know (including myself) are at least as clued up as most of the shark producers out there. We don't need protection from them: it should be vice-versa. For a country so keen on justice for all and the power of the individual to make up its mind, America has a pretty parochial view of the way things should be run. In fact, it's almost French in its crass pig-headedness...

I love you all really. :D

Oh yeah, we defininitely live in a world in which poor victimized bosses need to be protected from the depredations of lazy, greedy, selfish *employees.*

How unjustly they're treated. Boo hoo. Maybe we should pass around the hat and raise a fund to buy gifts for the heads of major frigging corporations because their employees treat them so badly, so unfairly, because we refuse to give them everything that they're entitled to. Because their *employees* are so rich, so idle, so spoiled, have it so good -- compared to the ground-down, under-valued, over-worked *heads of corporations.*

Here's a little bit of information for you. You can go back to the years when Michael Eisner was riding high and look at his salary -- what he was earning in bonuses and stock options in any one of those big years.

He earned more in any one of those big pay-day years then every single guild screenwriter was paid for every single guild screenplay bought by everybody in those years.

That's one single individual at one company.

Meanwhile, we've got to go into negotiations with these f*ckers making record profits year after year and hear them plead poverty -- hear them tell us how the business is going bust and that's why they can't pay us anything -- and in fact need rollbacks or else they're going to go bankrupt.

Meanwhile, right now, the guy who designs the *cover art* on the DVDs that you go out and buy today, collects a higher royalty per unit sold than the guy who wrote the script for the movie inside.

And if that's the deal we can get in *collective* bargaining, when we have the leverage of a guild-wide strike -- do you really think that you'd get a *better* deals negotiating with them one on one, when the only leverage you'd have would be denying them *your* service?

NMS

Hillgate

09-08-2007, 01:03 AM

Oh yeah, we defininitely live in a world in which poor victimized bosses need to be protected from the depredations of lazy, greedy, selfish *employees.*

How unjustly they're treated. Boo hoo. Maybe we should pass around the hat and raise a fund to buy gifts for the heads of major frigging corporations because their employees treat them so badly, so unfairly, because we refuse to give them everything that they're entitled to. Because their *employees* are so rich, so idle, so spoiled, have it so good -- compared to the ground-down, under-valued, over-worked *heads of corporations.*

Here's a little bit of information for you. You can go back to the years when Michael Eisner was riding high and look at his salary -- what he was earning in bonuses and stock options in any one of those big years.

He earned more in any one of those big pay-day years then every single guild screenwriter was paid for every single guild screenplay bought by everybody in those years.

That's one single individual at one company.

Meanwhile, we've got to go into negotiations with these f*ckers making record profits year after year and hear them plead poverty -- hear them tell us how the business is going bust and that's why they can't pay us anything -- and in fact need rollbacks or else they're going to go bankrupt.

Meanwhile, right now, the guy who designs the *cover art* on the DVDs that you go out and buy today, collects a higher royalty per unit sold than the guy who wrote the script for the movie inside.

And if that's the deal we can get in *collective* bargaining, when we have the leverage of a guild-wide strike -- do you really think that you'd get a *better* deals negotiating with them one on one, when the only leverage you'd have would be denying them *your* service?

NMS

Mmmm...well you certainly feel strongly about this, but the dichotomy for me is that (1) the zenith of world capitalist culture is the USA, and (2) unions are distinctly communist in flavour.

I'm all in favour of writers getting paid as much as possible (believe me, I am), but unions are pain in the ass organisations habitually run by self-serving shop-steward types who are the antithesis to anything creative, other than possibly their own expense accounts. I dislike unions, not writers.

The real culprit in the USA is perhaps the rather lax anti-trust legislation which allows quasi-monopolies (eg the sewn-up distribution network and ridiculously low across-the-board DVD net payments which you allude to). I'm not sure there's an answer to the artwork vs scriptwriter debate because I'm sure the artwork creator would argue vehemently the other way!

The fact that Michael Eisner was paid that much is I think irrelevant. He joins the same club as Bob Diamond, Hank Paulson and Philip Green (who paid himself - or rather his wife - a US$2billion dividend in 2006). Disney shareholders were happy(ish) to sanction such big money, presumably because they believed Eisner was making profits for his shareholders, which was his job. Philip Green was paid more than everyone in his whole company (with 1000s of employees). Chief executive pay is a different argument altogether to the union debate, and is a subject intrinsically unfair across many levels, but I can't see that aspect of corporate culture changing, just as I can't see the end of multimillion dollar deals for the 'best' in whatever field.

Do we begrudge it when Spielberg takes home US$72m in gross points and pay on a single project? Maybe we do, and maybe we don't.

The US has such diverse union problems that many non-US productions set in the US do not film in the US because of the restrictive and overbearing unionisation. They go to the Isle of Man, or wherever, and they ask any SAG actors to waive any entitlements under the SAG Collective Bargaining Agreement.

In the end, any studio/WGA/SAG debate will have to end in compromise, and the problem with strikes is that the people who get hurt are always the lower-earners in the chain, who cannot afford not to earn for an extended period.

The studios know that, the WGA knows that, and you and I know that. I hope there's no strike and a compromise can be reached. It would be in everyone's interest.
:flag:

NikeeGoddess

09-08-2007, 01:11 AM

Hillgate

09-08-2007, 01:38 AM

this really isn't the forum for union debating but in this case i don't see how a writer in an industry where they're nearly at the bottom of the money chain can argue against the benefits of the wga. maybe you're a foreigner and don't get it but opposing this union is like a gay man voting republican - and yes, they do exist but sheeeesh!

I'm a foreigner...but I do get it! :)

How does the WGA explain writers being at the bottom of the money chain? Surely there's a reasonable argument that if it had been doing its job over the years then writers would not be at the bottom of the money chain now. But then, logically, someone else would be: directors? producers? studios? How come the DGA gets seemingly better goodies for its members? Final credit? Etc Etc?

It really has little to do with unions per se, but actually more to do with the wider debate of who should get the credit/financial reward and how you value words on a page versus financial and camera work. Auteurism etc etc bla bla...

My argument is simply that I don't like the inherent structure and anticompetitiveness of unions. They are actually communist in theory!

And no, that doesn't stop me voting Republican (if I could - difficult as non-US resident). And no, I'm not even gay (although I wondered for a second if there was something in the subtext of my message that led you to conclude this!);)

odocoileus

09-08-2007, 02:08 AM

Unions the world over are a total waste of time, run for the sole benefit of the people running the unions. That said, I realise that doesn't remotely answer your question, but this is rant-time.
:rant:

Gross overgeneralization. Worlwide, some unions are weak, some are strong, some are corrupt, some aren't. Some unions actually promote professionalism and safety among their rank and file.

Over on his blog, Alex Epstein pointed out that the pay and benefits negotiated by the WGA (and by extension, the IATSE, DGA, and SAG) made it possible to have a deep talent pool available in Hollywood. In South Africa, where Epstein was shooting, the paltry pay and benefits made it difficult for anyone to devote themselves to one of the film trades.

Unionisation seems to be at its worst in the US: thirty-three years ago, the UK was just as bad and so we went on general strike, the lights went out and lots of people suffered. The solution was to break the unions.

The US has never been, and will never be, as unionized as the UK is currently. Huge stretches of the US are right to work, that is, the state law is pre emptively hostile to unionization and union exclusive employment. No offense, but you just plain don't know anything about US labor issues and the way unions work here. Ask anyone who does know, and they'll tell you that industrial union power in the US was broken decades ago.

The whole thing is silly crap: everyone knows it, but we live in such a ridiculously PC world that people don't like saying it. Where are these poor disadvantaged writers? The ones I know (including myself) are at least as clued up as most of the shark producers out there. We don't need protection from them: it should be vice-versa.

This doesn't pass the smell test. How many "shark producers" have you actually dealt with?

For a country so keen on justice for all and the power of the individual to make up its mind, America has a pretty parochial view of the way things should be run. In fact, it's almost French in its crass pig-headedness...

You don't know anything about the way we do business, in or out of the film industry. Our parochially run films and television industry routinely beats everyone elses, even in their home markets.

And French film crews are generally better than British ones.

I love you all really. :D

No thanks. I'll pass. Really.

Hillgate

09-08-2007, 03:37 AM

Gross overgeneralization. Worlwide, some unions are weak, some are strong, some are corrupt, some aren't. Some unions actually promote professionalism and safety among their rank and file.

Over on his blog, Alex Epstein pointed out that the pay and benefits negotiated by the WGA (and by extension, the IATSE, DGA, and SAG) made it possible to have a deep talent pool available in Hollywood. In South Africa, where Epstein was shooting, the paltry pay and benefits made it difficult for anyone to devote themselves to one of the film trades.

The US has never been, and will never be, as unionized as the UK is currently. Huge stretches of the US are right to work, that is, the state law is pre emptively hostile to unionization and union exclusive employment. No offense, but you just plain don't know anything about US labor issues and the way unions work here. Ask anyone who does know, and they'll tell you that industrial union power in the US was broken decades ago.

This doesn't pass the smell test. How many "shark producers" have you actually dealt with?

You don't know anything about the way we do business, in or out of the film industry. Our parochially run films and television industry routinely beats everyone elses, even in their home markets.

And French film crews are generally better than British ones.

No thanks. I'll pass. Really.

Hey: chill. I'm not bashing Uncle Sam and you're being a little defensive IMHO.

I hardly think you can give South Africa as an example for talent pools. The deep talent pool in LA is due to the deep talent pool in LA. It's nothing to do with the WGA.

The Teamsters - as an example - is one of the most notorious unions in the world. Twenty years ago it was being run by the mafia (Mr Hoffa and his fine friends). It's still called an International Brotherhood for God's sake. Bush has to suck up to them. Says it all really.

On producers...you smell shark, which is when the rule of law comes into play. As long as you have a good team behind you, you can compete with the sharks. Lawyers and courts were designed for that sort of thing.

You obviously are making the point that the US film business is the best in the world. Great! Who said it wasn't? And have you worked in France with French film crews? Ooooh la la...there's this awful little thing called the 35 hour week, two hour lunch breaks, leaving early for the weekends, public holidays AND strikes.

Actually, the French are extremely good at strikes. The British are too. And so are the Americans; in the words of the great Carly Simon, I'm sure nobody does it better.

It sounds like you need a hug.
:Hug2:

cynicallad

09-08-2007, 03:46 AM

Where are these poor disadvantaged writers? The ones I know (including myself) are at least as clued up as most of the shark producers out there. We don't need protection from them: it should be vice-versa.

Hillgate - there's so much that's factually/rhetorically wrong with your comments that it's difficult to know where to begin, but I'll start with this:

What is the WGA mininum residual perecentage for a made-for-theatrical motion picture? what is the WGA minimum residual percentage for ad sales on streaming video content? If you can answer these questions, my respect for your general knowledge will go up.

Additionally, you complained/bragged about being in development hell with producer who you're smarter than and who should be wary of you. What are the agreed upon residual payments in your contract?

Hillgate

09-08-2007, 04:16 AM

Hillgate - there's so much that's factually/rhetorically wrong with your comments that it's difficult to know where to begin, but I'll start with this:

What is the WGA mininum residual perecentage for a made-for-theatrical motion picture? what is the WGA minimum residual percentage for ad sales on streaming video content? If you can answer these questions, my respect for your general knowledge will go up.

Additionally, you complained/bragged about being in development hell with producer who you're smarter than and who should be wary of you. What are the agreed upon residual payments in your contract?

Just saying someone's wrong without backing it up is bottling out. And I can tell from your moniker that you're not a bottler. What do you disagree with, exactly, and why?

BTW - if you need to know WGA residual minimums I suggest you check the WGA website. It's extremely informative.

Also - you misquote me completely in your final paragraph. And it's 'agreed'. Not 'agreed upon'. The 'upon' is tautologous. And my residuals are conditional on there being a primary product, which there isn't, yet...

...but I live in hope. :)

odocoileus

09-08-2007, 04:50 AM

I'm a foreigner...but I do get it! :)

You're a foreigner and you're clueless.

Of course the wages and benefits negotiated by the unions allow for a deeper talent pool in above and below the line professions. Anyone who's worked in Hwd for any length of time can see it.

This even applies to extras. Non union extras are simply a cut below union extras in just about every way you can imagine. The producers broke the Screen Extras Guild in order to save money by hiring non union extras. They're cheaper, but they're also flakier and much harder to work with. The only reason the non union extras don't really screw things up is b/c extra work doesn't usually demand much skill.

Non union shoots generally tend to work their crews to exhaustion, and tolerate, if not encourage, indifference to safety procedures.

The best people in every film craft work union. As soon as they can get in, they join.

French film crews don't usually take 2 hour lunch breaks. Sometimes they work right through lunch, eating while they work. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know this.

There's a difference between French film craftsmen and French truck drivers.

In the US, the Teamsters represents a wide variety of professions. Film industry truck drivers, of course, but also cops, firefighters, and various skilled trades in localities all over the US. This is the reason that politicians have to pay attention to them.

There's power in numbers. Organizing is only the smart thing to do for people in certain trades and certain industries.

cynicallad

09-08-2007, 05:37 AM

Just saying someone's wrong without backing it up is bottling out. And I can tell from your moniker that you're not a bottler. What do you disagree with, exactly, and why?

BTW - if you need to know WGA residual minimums I suggest you check the WGA website. It's extremely informative.

Also - you misquote me completely in your final paragraph. And it's 'agreed'. Not 'agreed upon'. The 'upon' is tautologous. And my residuals are conditional on there being a primary product, which there isn't, yet...

...but I live in hope. :)

I actually know the residuals by heart, I was checking to see if you did, which you clearly don't.

And congrats on knowing how to use tautologous in a sentence. I find your ability to cover up a lack of general knowledge with SAT vocabulary words compelling.

Here's a refutation of your comments.

+++

In the end, any studio/WGA/SAG debate will have to end in compromise, and the problem with strikes is that the people who get hurt are always the lower-earners in the chain, who cannot afford not to earn for an extended period.

I have the greatest problem with this statement, as it’s demonstrably full of holes.

Obviously, any collective bargaining ends in compromise, but as a labor stoppage is the sole weapon in the Guild’s arsenal, they’ll need to keep the possibility as leverage. The Producers and Studios have the similar option of a lockout, but that’s a nuclear option of last resort on both sides. The Guilds terms are very reasonable, and at present, it’s the producers who are taking a more aggressive stance.
Additionally, the previous Executive Director of the WGA had a notoriously cozy relationship with the studios, and he left the Guild in the weakest position it’s ever been in.
Re: lower earners, they may be most fragile, but they’ve got the most to gain. I’m sure a contrarian like yourself can point to dozens of writers who lost out in strikes, but for every one of them there are one hundred writers who’ve used union gains to buy homes, put their kids through college, and even save their lives (the health benefits).
Moreso, there’s a multi-million dollar strike fund that will loan money to any writer who would have been earning during the strike. Similar monies were available in the great strike of 1988.
Nobody wants a strike, least of all writers, but it's a tact they may have to take to secure their future.

The ones I know (including myself) are at least as clued up as most of the shark producers out there. We don't need protection from them: it should be vice-versa.

Agreed, you're so savvy you don't even know how to negotiate residuals properly.

For a country so keen on justice for all and the power of the individual to make up its mind, America has a pretty parochial view of the way things should be run. In fact, it's almost French in its crass pig-headedness...

Yes, America and France are ideological twins. Point to you.

Mmmm...well you certainly feel strongly about this, but the dichotomy for me is that (1) the zenith of world capitalist culture is the USA, and (2) unions are distinctly communist in flavour.

While unions do tend to skew to the left, accusations of Communism are harder to prove. Bear in mind that Ronald Reagan was President of SAG, and we all know what a big pinko he was.
I'm all in favour of writers getting paid as much as possible (believe me, I am), but unions are pain in the ass organisations habitually run by self-serving shop-steward types who are the antithesis to anything creative, other than possibly their own expense accounts. I dislike unions, not writers.

We’re not talking about any old union, we’re talking about the Writers Guild, which is run by working writers. The president, Patric Verrone, has had a great career.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0894890/

The real culprit in the USA is perhaps the rather lax anti-trust legislation which allows quasi-monopolies (eg the sewn-up distribution network and ridiculously low across-the-board DVD net payments which you allude to). I'm not sure there's an answer to the artwork vs scriptwriter debate because I'm sure the artwork creator would argue vehemently the other way!

This is true, but your statements echo press releases put out by news companies controlled by the same quasi-monopolies you’re decrying. Are they right in this one instance?
The fact that Michael Eisner was paid that much is I think irrelevant. He joins the same club as Bob Diamond, Hank Paulson and Philip Green (who paid himself - or rather his wife - a US$2billion dividend in 2006). Disney shareholders were happy(ish) to sanction such big money, presumably because they believed Eisner was making profits for his shareholders, which was his job. Philip Green was paid more than everyone in his whole company (with 1000s of employees). Chief executive pay is a different argument altogether to the union debate, and is a subject intrinsically unfair across many levels, but I can't see that aspect of corporate culture changing, just as I can't see the end of multimillion dollar deals for the 'best' in whatever field.

I agree. CEO salaries are a different issue than Union business.

How does the WGA explain writers being at the bottom of the money chain? Surely there's a reasonable argument that if it had been doing its job over the years then writers would not be at the bottom of the money chain now. But then, logically, someone else would be: directors? producers? studios? How come the DGA gets seemingly better goodies for its members? Final credit? Etc Etc?

Writers aren’t at the bottom of the money chain, necessarily. Bear in mind, a number of them are producers, especially in TV. Directors do get better deals, but that's largely because they can sell a film with name value whereas writers (largely) can't (don't flame me, it's a fact).
It really has little to do with unions per se, but actually more to do with the wider debate of who should get the credit/financial reward and how you value words on a page versus financial and camera work. Auteurism etc etc bla bla...

My argument is simply that I don't like the inherent structure and anticompetitiveness of unions. They are actually communist in theory!

Again – Ronald Reagan ran a union. So did Frank Capra. I guess they were Communists too.

+++

Again, I'm not 100% sure why you're taking such a strong stand against a guild that's always had the best interests of working screenwriters at heart.

nmstevens

09-08-2007, 06:51 AM

Mmmm...well you certainly feel strongly about this, but the dichotomy for me is that (1) the zenith of world capitalist culture is the USA, and (2) unions are distinctly communist in flavour.

I'm all in favour of writers getting paid as much as possible (believe me, I am), but unions are pain in the ass organisations habitually run by self-serving shop-steward types who are the antithesis to anything creative, other than possibly their own expense accounts. I dislike unions, not writers.

The real culprit in the USA is perhaps the rather lax anti-trust legislation which allows quasi-monopolies (eg the sewn-up distribution network and ridiculously low across-the-board DVD net payments which you allude to). I'm not sure there's an answer to the artwork vs scriptwriter debate because I'm sure the artwork creator would argue vehemently the other way!

The fact that Michael Eisner was paid that much is I think irrelevant. He joins the same club as Bob Diamond, Hank Paulson and Philip Green (who paid himself - or rather his wife - a US$2billion dividend in 2006). Disney shareholders were happy(ish) to sanction such big money, presumably because they believed Eisner was making profits for his shareholders, which was his job. Philip Green was paid more than everyone in his whole company (with 1000s of employees). Chief executive pay is a different argument altogether to the union debate, and is a subject intrinsically unfair across many levels, but I can't see that aspect of corporate culture changing, just as I can't see the end of multimillion dollar deals for the 'best' in whatever field.

Do we begrudge it when Spielberg takes home US$72m in gross points and pay on a single project? Maybe we do, and maybe we don't.

The US has such diverse union problems that many non-US productions set in the US do not film in the US because of the restrictive and overbearing unionisation. They go to the Isle of Man, or wherever, and they ask any SAG actors to waive any entitlements under the SAG Collective Bargaining Agreement.

In the end, any studio/WGA/SAG debate will have to end in compromise, and the problem with strikes is that the people who get hurt are always the lower-earners in the chain, who cannot afford not to earn for an extended period.

The studios know that, the WGA knows that, and you and I know that. I hope there's no strike and a compromise can be reached. It would be in everyone's interest.
:flag:

Believe me, I'm one of the few folks who were around for the last strike, and I wouldn't want to give the impression that I'm favoring a new strike. I'm not.

But I know a number of the people who have been in on the negotiations and they are by no means "shop steward" types.

And if you think that mines would be safer, or that the lives of miners were better or would be better if it was simply mine owners on one side and individual miners who had the freedom to work according to the deal the miners gave or "quite and go somewhere else" -- and where would that be? Another mine with better working conditions?

What's clear is that no one is going to give someone more than they have to. What gets a better deal, at every level, is leverage.

If I'm an independent contractor -- say I paint houses, and you're somebody who wants your house painted, there's a certain equivalence between employer and employee. There are scores of independent contractors in any area offering the service, thousands of people who are looking for the service.

If I'm doing the hiring and I don't like what you charge, I'll go looking somewhere else. If I don't like the quality of your work, I won't hire you again. If I'm the contractor and I don't like what you're offering, I'll go look for another job. If you're a pain in the ass to work for, I won't work for you again.

From both sides, there are plenty of other people out there to hire painters. Plenty of other people who do the work of painting.

There's a kind of parity -- an equivalence of leverage.

But that parity doesn't apply when you have a handful of employers and thousands of employees, as in the case of major corporations and their employees.

When you have a major studio, or a big producer, or a big network (or fill in any big corporation) on one side, and an individual writer or worker on the other, the leverage of the worker is miniscule.

When one side of a bargain gets to essentially dictate all of the terms of the transaction, irrespective of the value of the product in question, because their leverage is so much greater, that is intrinsically unfair.

Put all the writers, or workers together and all of sudden it isn't simply one worker against a corporation that routinely hires and fires thousands -- and has a choice of thousands, and thus is free to dictate terms to thousands.

Rather, it's a handful of corporations on one side -- and thousands of writers/workers on the other.

That isn't communism -- it's an organized attempt to achieve some degree of parity of leverage between employer and employee.

It's easy to point to abuses on the part of unions. Are there abuses? Of course. Because certain unions have become powerful and any time any entity becomes powerful and entrenched there are going to be be abuses.

But guess what? Corporations are even more powerful and even more entrenched and if you think that there aren't abuses of power on the part of major corporations, maybe you need to do a web search on words like Enron and Haliburton and Wal-Mart (+employee lawsuits).

If I oppose a strike, it isn't because I think that management is somehow the victim of unfair leftist communististic labor meanies.

It's because I don't believe that a strike will work. Certainly not a strike by the WGA on it's own. It was tried twenty years ago. The results were a disaster. To the extent that anything has changed, the changes only favor management rather than us.

The only possibility of a successful labor action that I can see is for us to work without a contract (if management is prepared to let us do that), and wait for SAG and the DGA's contracts to expire.

If all three guilds go out (and it's a big question mark about the DGA, which has always been a management friendly guild) then there is a possibility that something might be accomplished, but even with SAG and the WGA together, it would be tough.

If all three guilds walk out, that would basically shut down the business -- shut down movies, TV production -- and live TV, because all of those live TV directors and associated DGA personnel walk out. No Today Show. No Good Morning America. No Oprah. No Name-Your-Sport. Nothing.

Then, suddenly, they'd be at the table, and we'd be in a position to negotiate a decent deal. Real Fast.

But that's not to say that this will be possible. The producers may not allow that convocation to occur. They may force the WGA to accept a deal when the contract expires by refusing, on their end, to allow us to work without a contract. That is, they may "lock us out" -- put us in the position of having to accept what's on the table, or strike.

That would have a significant advantage on their side. If we accept whatever crappy deal they offer -- and it will be a crappy deal, or even better (from their perspective), if we go out on strike, and ultimately cave in and accept their crappy deal, or something very close to it, which we inevitably will, because our pockets are so incredibly shallow compared to theirs, and thus their ability to outwait us is so much greater -- then they are in a position to take whatever we've accepted as a precedent into their negotiations with the other guilds.

From our perspective it's a lousy lose/lose situation. The only reason that I oppose a strike is because I believe, in the end, we'd lose more -- and that the only reason we end up getting the votes for a strike last time (and will get the votes for one this time, if we do) is because so many members of our guild are people who are not actively working and earning a living as writers. It's easy to be radical and to talk of principles if you have a day job, or if you're retired, or if you wrote one screenplay ten years ago, but you really do something else for a living. What the hell does it really cost you to go out on strike?

That was my deal twenty years ago. I had a day job. I could afford to listen to the firebrands. I actually believed the stuff that the people on the podiums were telling me.

But not now.

I think that the chances of the WGA winning a strike on our own are zero and I oppose it on that basis.

But the producers are still dead wrong.

NMS

Boo_Radley

09-08-2007, 10:48 AM

Pardon the interruption, but IS anyone here a member of the Writer's Guild? Kind of curious about that, myself.

Hillgate

09-08-2007, 12:35 PM

Hillgate

09-08-2007, 12:37 PM

Pardon the interruption, but IS anyone here a member of the Writer's Guild? Kind of curious about that, myself.

Good and necessary interruption: I'm not.

Hillgate

09-08-2007, 03:24 PM

I actually know the residuals by heart, I was checking to see if you did, which you clearly don't. DOES IT MAKE YOU A BETTER WRITER?

I find your ability to cover up a lack of general knowledge with SAT vocabulary words compelling.

I'M GLAD SOMEONE DOES.

Additionally, the previous Executive Director of the WGA had a notoriously cozy relationship with the studios, and he left the Guild in the weakest position it’s ever been in.

THIS DOES ADD TO THE 'UNION SCEPTIC' ARGUMENT DOESN'T IT? I JUST HOPE HISTORY DOESN'T REPEAT ITSELF.

you're so savvy you don't even know how to negotiate residuals properly. NOT BEING ABLE TO QUOTE THEM EX TEMPORE (I'M NOT EVEN A WGA MEMBER) IS DIFFERENT FROM KNOWING HOW TO NEGOTIATE.

The president, Patric Verrone, has had a great career.

ABSOLUTELY, BUT HE'S MORE OF A PRODUCER THAN A WRITER. AND THE NO.2 GUY (ON IMDB) IS AN ACTOR WITH ONE CREDIT FROM 1988. AND THE THIRD...WHO IS SHE? NO CREDITS. THESE ARE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES.

Again – Ronald Reagan ran a union. So did Frank Capra. I guess they were Communists too.

COMMUNIST LEADERS HAD DACHAS AND LAVISH LIVES WHILST THE PEOPLE UNDER THEM SUFFERED. STALIN WAS A CAPITALIST WHO USED COMMUNISM TO CONTROL THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE...

+++

Again, I'm not 100% sure why you're taking such a strong stand against a guild that's always had the best interests of working screenwriters at heart.

I'M ALL FOR WRITERS. I AM ONE! I'M NOT AGAINST THE WGA. I JUST HATE THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT COMES WITH ANY UNION.

IF I LIVED IN THE USA I'D PROBABLY BE A MEMBER OF THE WGA BY DEFAULT AND BE FRETTING ABOUT A POSSIBLE STRIKE. AND FRETTING ABOUT MONEY TOO, PROBABLY.

nmstevens

09-08-2007, 05:31 PM

Hi NMS

I agree with you about leverage.

I just have this thing about striking, or being told to strike, or forced to strike even if I vote against a strike (which would be my right as a union member). I do not think that it is right that an organisation can restrict a worker's right to work, if, say, he is offered work during a strike that he never wanted.

One final comment before I go and put away my 'political' hat: in most businesses, grievances about pay boil down to relativity - eg 'so and so's paid more than me. It's not fair' - and not absolute terms.

The sun is out...and a new day dawns...
:Sun:

Would you believe that it would be okay, if you agreed to do a job for somebody for a particular amount of money, if they then paid you that money, that they would then be allowed to "tell" you to do the job?

Would that be okay?

Well, there's a word for that. It's called a contract.

That's how contracts work. Nobody holds a gun to your head and forces you to sign. You do it voluntarily. Because you do that, you get certain things, and you also give up certain things.

For instance, one of the things you get is that the guild, not the producers, gets to determine final credit on any movie written by Guild writers. So you don't have a situation where you work on something for a couple years and then see the Producer's name, who's contribution consisted of suggesting that maybe the hero ought to be a pirate (an idea that you didn't take) ending up in the credits as screenwriter instead of yours.

In fact, if the name of any producer or a director, is even submitted as a possible credit, credit arbitration is automatic. The writer can't even refuse to have the credit arbitrated (because clearly, there can be tremendous pressure brought to go along with such a credit).

Royalty and residual payments -- all negotiated -- and collected -- through the guild.

Pension and welfare payments -- collected through the guild.

But for the things that you get, you have to agree to follow the terms of the MBA -- and that means, among other things, you can't do non-guild work, and if the guild votes to strike, you can't be a scab.

I signed up with the Guild, and by doing that, I agreed to abide by the terms of the MBA -- the minimum basic agreement, some terms of which I agree with, some I don't.

The producer who sit down at the table to negotiate with us, have put their signature to the same document.

They get something for that -- the ability to have access to the services of every professional writer currently working in the WGA, but they also have to give something. They also have to abide by the restrictions imposed on them by that agreement.

It's a contract. No one puts a gun to anyone's head. Roger Corman's company, for instance, isn't a signatory. They don't pay guild minimum. They don't have to abide by guild rules regarding credits. They don't pay into any pension fund. And if you *aren't* a member of the guild, you're free to work for them. And they are free to hire any writer who isn't a member of the guild and pay them as little or as much as they want.

But if you're a member of the guild, you can't work for them -- not because anybody is "forcing" you -- but because you've agreed not to.

And if you're a producer who's signed the MBA -- you can't hire a non-guild writer and pay him non-guild wages to write for you for the same reason. Not because somebody is "forcing you" --any more than anybody is forcing Roger Corman to do anything -- but because you're agreed to it.

That's not communism or socialism or capitalism or fascism. It's contract law. Two parties agree to something and then abide by their agreement.

NMS

NikeeGoddess

09-08-2007, 07:53 PM

I'M ALL FOR WRITERS. I AM ONE! I'M NOT AGAINST THE WGA. I JUST HATE THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT COMES WITH ANY UNION.

IF I LIVED IN THE USA I'D PROBABLY BE A MEMBER OF THE WGA BY DEFAULT AND BE FRETTING ABOUT A POSSIBLE STRIKE. AND FRETTING ABOUT MONEY TOO, PROBABLY.

i don't get what's the problem. you don't have to be a member. no one will force you to join. there is no "default" in becoming a member just because you're a writer. don't join and leave it at that.

tangent alert:
i live in a city that doesn't have the power to vote in congress or the senate. i live in a city that years ago voted a crackhead in as mayor. but, no one forces me to live here or support those decisions made by others.

Hillgate

09-08-2007, 08:10 PM

one of the things you get is that the guild, not the producers, gets to determine final credit on any movie written by Guild writers. So you don't have a situation where you work on something for a couple years and then see the Producer's name, who's contribution consisted of suggesting that maybe the hero ought to be a pirate (an idea that you didn't take) ending up in the credits as screenwriter instead of yours.

THAT'S FINE, BUT CREDITS AMONGST OTHER THINGS SHOULD BE SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN WRITER AND PRODUCER. IF THERE'S A PROBLEM, YOU GO TO COURT. THIS IS THE CASE IN NON-WGA CONTRACTS.

In fact, if the name of any producer or a director, is even submitted as a possible credit, credit arbitration is automatic. The writer can't even refuse to have the credit arbitrated (because clearly, there can be tremendous pressure brought to go along with such a credit). AGAIN, THE UNDERLYING CONTRACT SHOULD DEAL WITH THIS.

Royalty and residual payments -- all negotiated -- and collected -- through the guild. BUT THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING HIGHER AMOUNTS BEING AGREED UNDER THE CONTRACT. FOR A MORE TAILORED SOLUTION YOU USE YOUR LAWYERS.

Pension and welfare payments -- collected through the guild.

But for the things that you get, you have to agree to follow the terms of the MBA -- and that means, among other things, you can't do non-guild work, and if the guild votes to strike, you can't be a scab. THAT'S FINE.

I signed up with the Guild, and by doing that, I agreed to abide by the terms of the MBA -- the minimum basic agreement, some terms of which I agree with, some I don't.

The producer who sit down at the table to negotiate with us, have put their signature to the same document.

They get something for that -- the ability to have access to the services of every professional writer currently working in the WGA, but they also have to give something. They also have to abide by the restrictions imposed on them by that agreement. YES BUT THEY HAVE ACCESS TO ALL WRITERS, INCLUDING NON-WGA. OTHERWISE IT'S A RESTRICTIVE PRACTICE.

It's a contract. No one puts a gun to anyone's head. ABSOLUTELY. Roger Corman's company, for instance, isn't a signatory. They don't pay guild minimum. They don't have to abide by guild rules regarding credits. They don't pay into any pension fund. And if you *aren't* a member of the guild, you're free to work for them. And they are free to hire any writer who isn't a member of the guild and pay them as little or as much as they want.

But if you're a member of the guild, you can't work for them -- not because anybody is "forcing" you -- but because you've agreed not to. IF YOU SIGN A CONTRACT YOU HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE PROVISIONS.

And if you're a producer who's signed the MBA -- you can't hire a non-guild writer and pay him non-guild wages to write for you for the same reason. BUT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG: YOU CAN HIRE A NON-GUILD WRITER AND PAY HIM/HER AT LEAST AS MUCH AS WGA MINIMUMS. Not because somebody is "forcing you" --any more than anybody is forcing Roger Corman to do anything -- but because you're agreed to it.

That's not communism or socialism or capitalism or fascism. It's contract law. Two parties agree to something and then abide by their agreement.

NMS

This is an example, however you try and argue it, of contract law leading to a restrictive practice. The resultant situation applies pressure on non-signatories to sign because otherwise they're left out. It is the classic example of a closed shop.

It should be challengeable in law, and perhaps one day it will be. It is hardly free trade. A contract can say anything as long as it's not illegal. Paying someone more or less than WGA minimums is not illegal, it merely breaches the terms of a restrictive contract entered into with multiple parties but possibly excluding the payor or payee.

For example, if I agree not to hire any gardener that is not a member of the gardeners' union and then there's a gardener's strike, I either do the gardening myself or pay someone to do it in breach of my own restrictive agreement or I let the garden wither and die, which I absolutely do not want to do.

If I decide to breach my agreement and hire a non-union gardener then what is the proper sanction for that? Damages? Whose contract have I breached? It is the one I entered into with the gardener's union. And what if the strike is resolved and I want to rehire a union gardener? Am I barred from offering gainful employment to a union gardener in future because I refused to let my garden die? What would the WGA say?

Substitute nurses for gardeners and you have people dying.

NikeeGoddess

09-08-2007, 08:12 PM

Substitute nurses for gardeners and you have people dying.
we do have federal laws that limit the ability of some professions to strike. but writing is never a life and death matter so it doesn't apply.

Hillgate

09-08-2007, 09:16 PM

we do have federal laws that limit the ability of some professions to strike. but writing is never a life and death matter so it doesn't apply.

You've said the truest thing here NikeeGoddess: it's never life and death. I'm going to open a bottle of wine. :)

Hillgate

09-08-2007, 09:59 PM

odocoileus

09-09-2007, 01:42 AM

It's a contract. No one puts a gun to anyone's head. Roger Corman's company, for instance, isn't a signatory. They don't pay guild minimum. They don't have to abide by guild rules regarding credits. They don't pay into any pension fund. And if you *aren't* a member of the guild, you're free to work for them. And they are free to hire any writer who isn't a member of the guild and pay them as little or as much as they want. Good point about Corman. Lots of people start out over there, but they move into the mainstream, unionized industry as soon as they can. Why? Because only the unionized shops offer the possibility of making a decent living and a sustained career. Check out the biographies on Corman. A lot of people feel that his incorrigible cheapness has hurt his creative output.

I suspect that Guild requirements work to the disadvantage of marginally talented bottom feeders, who might be able to overcome their lack of ability by working cheaper than the going rate.

It is the classic example of a closed shop. It's not an example of a closed shop. You don't understand the terms you are using.

In a closed shop, a signatory company would have to hire a writer already in the Guild. This is not the case. A signatory can hire anyone they want, but the new hire must join the Guild if not already a member.

This is called "must join" and it applies to WGA and SAG. As Neal pointed out, if you don't want to join, don't work for signatories. Signatories agree to the deal because the best talent works union.

Some of the below the line trades in IATSE and the DGA are actually closed. A signatory can't hire a key grip or first AD right off the street. They have to be union members with the appropriate amount of time in grade. Management still has a huge pool of workers to choose from, most members are out of work at any given time.

But an IATSE strike isn't an issue, and the DGA is the least likely of the above the line unions to strike. A big chunk of the DGA's members are management. It's the Producers who fund the AD training program after all.

It should be challengeable in law, and perhaps one day it will be. It is hardly free trade. It is most certainly free trade. A production entity has a choice: gain access to Guild talent by paying Guild rates and otherwise following the contract, or do without Guild talent and pay whatever they can get away with. The Guild's only power is the fact that the best writers have chosen the Guild to represent them.

Big corporations like the above mentioned Walmart do essentially the same thing. They use their size to negotiate better deals from their suppliers.

Substitute nurses for gardeners and you have people dying.
Here in the States one of the key reasons nurses go on strike is to demand improvements in the nurse to patient ratio. Hospital managers are inclined to set the ratios so low as to jeopardize patient safety.

Non-union doesn't always equal unsafe, but it has often enough in industries from mining to movies to hospitals.

__________________________________________________ __________________

tangent alert:
i live in a city that doesn't have the power to vote in congress or the senate. i live in a city that years ago voted a crackhead in as mayor. but, no one forces me to live here or support those decisions made by others.Nikee, Nikee, Nikee,

why you gotta hate on Marion like that? He wasn't a crackhead when he was first elected. He'd been in office for two terms before he started doing coke and getting blowjobs in strip clubs.
:roll:

cynicallad

09-09-2007, 02:03 AM

From today's RapidTV News site:

The powerful WGA is saying its members will stop working from November 1 unless new terms can be reached. Their grumble concerns residual fees – or the lack of them – for lucrative internet and even cell-phone exploitation of material. Further discussions are scheduled for September 19, but previous talks broke down without much sign of harmony. The current WGA-studio agreement expires on October 31, hence the Nov 1 threat...

....Some experts suggest the WGA is not powerful enough to go it alone, but the industry knows that in June next year the Screen Actors Guild is due to start similar talks with the studios – and they’re seen as a tougher bunch. Together with the WGA the SAG could bring the studios to heel.

Which is why some broadcasters are seeking “insurance”. US Trade mag Variety has spoken of UK shows like Footballers’ Wives and similar UK fare being potential beneficiaries from the threatened action. US broadcasters used to be ultra-sensitive about British accents on TV, but with celebrities like Simon Cowell now a regular on the US media scene, those anxieties are less.

Good for those bloody Brits, I suppose...:)

http://www.rapidtvnews.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=1&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=1792&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1966&hn=rapidtvnews&he=.com

Thanks for the link. Let me clear up the obvious slants and misconceptions introduced by the author.

1. "The Powerful WGA" - While the guild is a significant organization, it's hardly the evil empire. If the Guild is "Powerful", the AMPTP (Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers) would be near "god-like." It'd be like calling Watership Down powerful compared to Efrafa.

2. "Saying it's members will stop working." That's a lie, as evidenced by the fact that there's no link to any sort of press release or statement from a WGA rep. Presently, the membership plans to work without a contract unless told otherwise. The Guild hasn't even had the strike authorization vote yet. It's far more likely the AMPTP will call for a general lockout.

3. "Previous talks broke down." - The previous talks were interuppted by the AMPTP's need to negotiate with the Teamsters on their contract - it was an amicable hiatus and they made the gesture of resuming MBA talks at WGA offices.

In short, the language and wording of the cited piece clearly displays an anti-labor bent (much like my writing is pro-labor, but I'm not pretending to be a journalist). When you read about labor disputes, remember that most newsmedia comes from Big Business, which hates labor.

odocoileus

09-09-2007, 02:19 AM

Exactly. The piece was pro Producer propaganda masquerading as journalism. The Producers have done a good job seeding anti WGA hit pieces in various media outlets.

Much of this stuff has the taste of sour grapes. Journalists resent the money that the A list writers earn, and resent even more the fact that most journos aren't good enough writers to make a living in film.

http://www.rapidtvnews.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=1&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=1792&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1966&hn=rapidtvnews&he=.com

Thanks for the link. Let me clear up the obvious slants and misconceptions introduced by the author.

1. "The Powerful WGA" - While the guild is a significant organization, it's hardly the evil empire. If the Guild is "Powerful", the AMPTP (Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers) would be near "god-like." It'd be like calling Watership Down powerful compared to Efrafa.

2. "Saying it's members will stop working." That's a lie, as evidenced by the fact that there's no link to any sort of press release or statement from a WGA rep. Presently, the membership plans to work without a contract unless told otherwise. The Guild hasn't even had the strike authorization vote yet. It's far more likely the AMPTP will call for a general lockout.

3. "Previous talks broke down." - The previous talks were interuppted by the AMPTP's need to negotiate with the Teamsters on their contract - it was an amicable hiatus and they made the gesture of resuming MBA talks at WGA offices.

In short, the language and wording of the cited piece clearly displays an anti-labor bent (much like my writing is pro-labor, but I'm not pretending to be a journalist). When you read about labor disputes, remember that most newsmedia comes from Big Business, which hates labor.

cynicallad

09-09-2007, 02:22 AM

I'M ALL FOR WRITERS. I AM ONE! I'M NOT AGAINST THE WGA. I JUST HATE THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT COMES WITH ANY UNION.

IF I LIVED IN THE USA I'D PROBABLY BE A MEMBER OF THE WGA BY DEFAULT AND BE FRETTING ABOUT A POSSIBLE STRIKE. AND FRETTING ABOUT MONEY TOO, PROBABLY.

I like talking with you, as your vitriol and lack of actual information makes anyone who might agree with you want to disassociate themselves from you.

Our numbe two guy? Would you be referring to Vice Prez David N. Weiss?
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0918955/maindetails He's got a great career too. Where are you getting your facts?

The members of the WGA Negotiating Committee are: John F. Bowman, chair; Neal Baer, Marc Cherry, Bill Condon, Carlton Cuse, Stephen Gaghan, Terry George, David A. Goodman, Carl Gottlieb, Susannah Grant, Brian Koppelman, Carol Mendelsohn, Marc Norman, Shawn Ryan, Robin Schiff, Melissa Salmons, and Ed Solomon.

All of these people have credits that range from good to freaking amazing. Additionally, Ron Bass is an alternate.

So Stalin was a Capitalist eh? By association does that make Ronald Reagan a Communist. God knows I'm not Reagan's biggest fan, but I'd certainly never accuse him of Communism.

IF I LIVED IN THE USA I'D PROBABLY BE A MEMBER OF THE WGA BY DEFAULT AND BE FRETTING ABOUT A POSSIBLE STRIKE. AND FRETTING ABOUT MONEY TOO, PROBABLY.

I just have this thing about striking, or being told to strike, or forced to strike even if I vote against a strike (which would be my right as a union member). I do not think that it is right that an organisation can restrict a worker's right to work, if, say, he is offered work during a strike that he never wanted.

As you mention, a strike can't be called unless voted on by the membership. If you want not to strike, you can defect from the Guild - America, being a free country, happilly (Industry nerds will note that Robert Rodriguez resigned from the DGA over Sin City).

You talk about freedom - I agree, nobody likes to be told what to do, but remember, before the WGA, producers had all the power - there were no residuals, no pensions, and worst of all, writers ended up sharing credit with the brother-in-laws and mistresses of producers. I'm sure as a writer you enjoy your benefits, so I hope the knowledge that they were gained through Union efforts sours them for you.

It should be challengeable in law, and perhaps one day it will be. It is hardly free trade. A contract can say anything as long as it's not illegal. Paying someone more or less than WGA minimums is not illegal, it merely breaches the terms of a restrictive contract entered into with multiple parties but possibly excluding the payor or payee.

As a savvy operator like yourself knows, there are many shows that don't have union coverage, and more than a few feature films. You seem to imagine the union as a monolithic entity with tentacles everywhere, but it's reasonably easy to get and do non-union work.

For example, if I agree not to hire any gardener that is not a member of the gardeners' union and then there's a gardener's strike, I either do the gardening myself or pay someone to do it in breach of my own restrictive agreement or I let the garden wither and die, which I absolutely do not want to do.

Do you also oppose the minimum wage?

nmstevens

09-09-2007, 02:36 AM

This is an example, however you try and argue it, of contract law leading to a restrictive practice. The resultant situation applies pressure on non-signatories to sign because otherwise they're left out. It is the classic example of a closed shop.

It should be challengeable in law, and perhaps one day it will be. It is hardly free trade. A contract can say anything as long as it's not illegal. Paying someone more or less than WGA minimums is not illegal, it merely breaches the terms of a restrictive contract entered into with multiple parties but possibly excluding the payor or payee.

For example, if I agree not to hire any gardener that is not a member of the gardeners' union and then there's a gardener's strike, I either do the gardening myself or pay someone to do it in breach of my own restrictive agreement or I let the garden wither and die, which I absolutely do not want to do.

If I decide to breach my agreement and hire a non-union gardener then what is the proper sanction for that? Damages? Whose contract have I breached? It is the one I entered into with the gardener's union. And what if the strike is resolved and I want to rehire a union gardener? Am I barred from offering gainful employment to a union gardener in future because I refused to let my garden die? What would the WGA say?

Substitute nurses for gardeners and you have people dying.

All contracts, by definition are restrictive. They are mutually restrictive. They are mutually beneficial. If the ways in which they restrict outway the extent to which they benefit you don't enter into them. There are a number of major players in this business who aren't members of the DGA, who aren't members of the Writer's Guild, who continue to make movies in Hollywood. They aren't locked out by anybody. That is a choice that they have made.

Look, maybe you've heard of these products we have hear -- they're known as Coke and Pepsi. They don't like each other. So what they try to do is to establish deals with major buyers -- places like McDonalds, or major venues like corporations or Stadiums and movie chains. -- you use our products exclusively and don't use any product by the other guys and you'll receive a benefit from it. We'll cut you a special deal. But if you breach the agreement, they'll be penalties, and that's built into the deal.

Benefits -- penalties.

Take the deal. Don't take deal.

Some places take the deal. Some places don't take the deal. That's why some places you go you can only get Pepsi, some places you can only get Coke, some places you can get both.

Well, that's the offer that the Guild makes. You go with us, you're a union shop. You're Pepsi, and you can't then turn around and go with Coke.

You go with that deal, there are benefits -- you have access to all of the experienced writers who are members of our organization -- and they have agreed to only work for guys like you, who have signed up with us.

But there's a downside too. You can't work with non-guild writers. You can't go out and hire a writer for five grand to write a low budget movie. You can't make a side deal on your own to decide between you'all who gets credit on that movie you're making with you producing and your wife co-producing, and your son directing and some stranger writing the script - and if he doesn't like how the credit determination comes out as decided by you, he's "free to sue" with the results of the lawsuit being determined some time after the DVDs hit the remainder bins.

But, as with all things -- it's still your choice.

Take the deal. Don't take the deal.

But if you take it, don't go wah, wah, wah -- the mean ole' commies are bullying us with their mean old closed shop.

Because it takes two to close that shop door, and nobody heard them complaining when they signed.

And the example of you, individual lawn owner vs. Big Bad Old Gardener's Union isn't applicable.

We, as a union, don't negotiate with individual producers. We negotiate with an association of producers. It is as a unified association that they make demands, present terms, negotiate the contract. As do we.

As far as nurses are concerned, the fact that they are legalled prevented from striking is probably responsible for the fact that they are among the most underpaid and poorly treated profession around.

Let me ask you something.

Suppose those that pay nurses today decided to extend their hours by fifty percent without increasing their pay.

Sorry. Things are tough. We need you to work those extra hours.

Or make it double your hours.

Oh, you say -- then they can just quit.

Right. So, management says, "We're going to raise your hours by double and every nurse says -- "if you do that, we're all going to quit and go find some other kind of job where we don't get that kind of abuse."

That would be fine. But going on strike would be terrible -- because that would cost lives whereas all the nurses just quitting would -- would what?

Not cost lives?

Why is it that management never take a hit for its abuses?

Back when there was a baseball strike you heard over and over and over -- aren't the players earning enough? Why are they striking? But nobody ever seemed to ask or to wonder or to bother to ask themselves -- isn't management earning enough? Or maybe, in fact, management was earning too much. Maybe the strike wasn't caused by greedy players who were already "earning enough" -- but by greedy management who was already "earning enough."

NMS

Hillgate

09-09-2007, 04:17 AM

[quote=odocoileus;1618034]
It's not an example of a closed shop. You don't understand the terms you are using. In a closed shop, a signatory company would have to hire a writer already in the Guild. This is not the case. A signatory can hire anyone they want, but the new hire must join the Guild if not already a member. This is called "must join" and it applies to WGA and SAG. As Neal pointed out, if you don't want to join, don't work for signatories. Signatories agree to the deal because the best talent works union.

A LOT OF GOOD TALENT WORK NON-WGA CONTRACTS FOR WAY HIGHER THAN MINIMUM. IT'S JUST THEY DON'T HAPPEN TO LIVE IN THE USA...:D

AND IF YOU READ YOUR OWN EXAMPLE CLEARLY, YOU'LL SEE IT'S STILL DE FACTO CLOSED SHOP. THE WORD 'MUST' SAYS IT ALL.

A big chunk of the DGA's members are management. It's the Producers who fund the AD training program after all.

WRITERS SHOULD BECOME MANAGEMENT.

NOW CAN YOU ALL PLEASE STOP WRITING SUCH LONG MESSAGES. AFTER 3 OR 4 GLASSES OF WINE IT BECOMES EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO FOCUS ON THOSE LITTLE BLACK LETTERS

Hillgate

09-09-2007, 04:30 AM

odocoileus

09-09-2007, 04:47 AM

Alot? No, just a few relative to the total membership of the Guild. They're outliers. It's foolish to base a general policy on exceptions.

The WGA contract forces the signatories to treat the writers with a measure of decency, and it takes away a lot of the incentive for signatories to get involved in a race to the bottom in terms of pay and benefits. No prodco can say, "Well their cutting writer's pay in half at Blue Balls Entertainment, so we have to cut our writer's pay as well to stay competitive."

A closed shop, by definition, means that employment is closed to those without preexisting union membership. No such thing as a defacto closed shop.

As I pointed out before, assistant director jobs with signatories are closed shop. It doesn't matter if a signatory thinks you can do the job, without DGA membership and their certification of qualifications, you can't apply for the job. THAT is a closed shop.

Whereas your agent is free to submit you to any TV show, prodco, or studio that's open to subs. It's about as open as you can get, assuming you can get an agent. It's the very openness of the process that makes agents necessary as a filtering process.

It is free trade, about as free as any you're likely to find in the actual world. That's why the writing side of the biz is so brutally competitive.

odocoileus

09-09-2007, 04:55 AM

IT'S A PLOT. THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY OUT TO GET YOU! QUICK - CHECK THAT PATIO DOOR...

No, kid. They're out to get our residuals.

Any time large sums of cash are at stake, people can get mean and devious.

Everyone in Hwd knows the value of PR, and studios know it better than most. It's the WGA whose efforts in this area are surprisingly amateurish.

IF I LIVED IN THE USA I'D PROBABLY BE A MEMBER OF THE WGA BY DEFAULT AND BE FRETTING ABOUT A POSSIBLE STRIKE. AND FRETTING ABOUT MONEY TOO, PROBABLY.

With your naive worldview, I'd be surprised if you lasted in Hollywood for any length of time.

It's one thing not to have the facts right. It's another thing altogether to be proud of you ignorance.

Mac H.

09-09-2007, 09:33 AM

Obviously I'm totally unqualified to talk about this generally, but I'd like to correct one misunderstanding:

The argument was made that the WGA deals aren't a closed shop because:
A closed shop, by definition, means that employment is closed to those without preexisting union membership.

That may be a purely American definition, but in other parts of the world, the term is also used to cover the 'union shop' - which is closer to what the WGA enforces. To quote the omniscient wikipedia:

A closed shop is a business or industrial factory in which union membership (often of a specific union and no other) is a precondition to employment. It is different from the union shop, which does not require employees to be union members as a condition of employment, but does require that they join the union or pay the equivalent of union dues within a set period of time following their hire, although this too is commonly referred to as a "closed shop" in the United Kingdom.
Clearly, the WGA arrangement matches this example of a closed/union shop - using the UK definition rather than the US one. (Remember that the person who made the claim about 'closed shop' wasn't from the USA)

No matter what the technical definition is - it's an arrangement that would be illegal in many other countries. (That doesn't mean that it's a bad thing - just an observation)

Clearly I have no dog in this fight - as someone who lives outside in the USA, I'm not even required to join when selling to WGA signatories. (Yay! What would be the point of paying TWO unions?) Just as a matter of full disclosure, I'm a member of the AWG (the Aussie version of the WGA) but that's purely a choice - there is no requirement to do so.

Mac

Boo_Radley

09-09-2007, 11:51 AM

And still no one's answered the original question of whether or not they're in the Writer's Guild.

I'm going to assume these are all nos.

cynicallad

09-09-2007, 11:58 AM

I am, if you had to ask.

nmstevens

09-09-2007, 07:12 PM

Obviously I'm totally unqualified to talk about this generally, but I'd like to correct one misunderstanding:

The argument was made that the WGA deals aren't a closed shop because:

That may be a purely American definition, but in other parts of the world, the term is also used to cover the 'union shop' - which is closer to what the WGA enforces. To quote the omniscient wikipedia:

Clearly, the WGA arrangement matches this example of a closed/union shop - using the UK definition rather than the US one. (Remember that the person who made the claim about 'closed shop' wasn't from the USA)

No matter what the technical definition is - it's an arrangement that would be illegal in many other countries. (That doesn't mean that it's a bad thing - just an observation)

Clearly I have no dog in this fight - as someone who lives outside in the USA, I'm not even required to join when selling to WGA signatories. (Yay! What would be the point of paying TWO unions?) Just as a matter of full disclosure, I'm a member of the AWG (the Aussie version of the WGA) but that's purely a choice - there is no requirement to do so.

Mac

But what you also have to understand is that, within business structures, you can have what are know as "parent and child" corporations.

Awhile ago I worked for a development/production company -- Laurel Entertainment. It was owned by Spelling. Spelling had deals with SAG, with the WGA, with the DGA, with IA -- it was a big Hollywood player that did shows like Charlie's Angels.

We, even though they owned us, had deals with nobody. When we wanted to do a show, we created a separate sub-corporation -- and that corporation signed with whatever unions it needed to sign with, generally SAG and WGA, but not IA, and not DGA -- because they increased the cost of production too much.

So, in principle, it would be possible for the parent company -- Laurel Entertainment, to be in production on a series that was WGA, and at the same time, be in production on a movie, under a different "corporate entity" that was not WGA, not DGA -- not anything, created for the purpose of doing that one project, if we thought that it was worth doing.

Robert Rodriguez, is not a member of any guild. He quit, for whatever reason.

And yet he makes movies with the studios who are all signatories. How does that work with these presumed "closed shops?"

The way it works is as above. They create a specific corporate entity that is non-signatory that specifically exists to make the movie with him.

It's all legal. It's all above board.

If it were truly, as you indicate above, a "closed shop" -- no studio would be able to make a movie with this guy. But they can and they do.

NMS

Plot Device

09-09-2007, 08:02 PM

I am not in the writer's guild. I've never sold anything.

I recall that when Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream was first formed about 25 or 30 years ago, they drew up a business plan and adopted some kind of bi-laws that governed the running of the company. Those bi-laws (or whatever they were called) stipulated that no employee was allowed to make more than 7 times as much as any other employee. So when it came time to start doling out bonuses and annual profit sharing, they had to keep that formula in place at all times. So while the guy sweeping the floor got a comparatively smaller chunk of the profit sharing pie then either Ben or Jerry did, it was never MICROSCOPICALLY smaller.

I don't know if Ben & Jerry's still has that same business model today. But I appreciate their initial efforts to prevent the tired and sad situation from arising whereby the upper-ups of their company would make millions while the little guys made next to nothing. I personally don't mind hearing about top CEO's making maybe half a million dollars a year. But I do very much mind hearing about them making six or seven million a year in huge bonuses. It's even worse when there are ten or twenty such executives in these huge corporatrions who each walk out of the office on a Friday afternoon in December with a Christmas bonus of nine million apiece (which means they now have a cumulative total betwen them of 90 million or 180 million in their latest paychecks), and the guy sweeping the floor got a Christmas bonus of fifty bucks. It's grossly disproportionate. It's utterly needless. No one in any company in any corner of life on this planet in any industry in the history of commerce is worth that much more than anyone else. No one. No one. Absolutely no one. I think businesses that strive to keep things proportional--like Ben & Jerry's--should be commended and imitated.

As for Hollywood, the writer is DESPERATELY important, and yet is treated like garbage. If anyone deserves a bonus, it's the writer. And NOT a bonus of a mere fifty bucks.

::ETA::

See my sig.

odocoileus

09-09-2007, 10:01 PM

Interesting.

http://www.slate.com/id/2116501

But what you also have to understand is that, within business structures, you can have what are know as "parent and child" corporations.

Awhile ago I worked for a development/production company -- Laurel Entertainment. It was owned by Spelling. Spelling had deals with SAG, with the WGA, with the DGA, with IA -- it was a big Hollywood player that did shows like Charlie's Angels.

We, even though they owned us, had deals with nobody. When we wanted to do a show, we created a separate sub-corporation -- and that corporation signed with whatever unions it needed to sign with, generally SAG and WGA, but not IA, and not DGA -- because they increased the cost of production too much.

So, in principle, it would be possible for the parent company -- Laurel Entertainment, to be in production on a series that was WGA, and at the same time, be in production on a movie, under a different "corporate entity" that was not WGA, not DGA -- not anything, created for the purpose of doing that one project, if we thought that it was worth doing.

Robert Rodriguez, is not a member of any guild. He quit, for whatever reason.

And yet he makes movies with the studios who are all signatories. How does that work with these presumed "closed shops?"

The way it works is as above. They create a specific corporate entity that is non-signatory that specifically exists to make the movie with him.

It's all legal. It's all above board.

If it were truly, as you indicate above, a "closed shop" -- no studio would be able to make a movie with this guy. But they can and they do.

NMS

nmstevens

09-10-2007, 02:32 AM

Interesting.

http://www.slate.com/id/2116501

What's interesting about the attached article is that, had Rodriguez wanted to do John Carter of Mars -- had he initiated the project -- he could easily have gone to the studio -- any studio, and there wouldn't have been any problem with their financing the project, with him attached to direct, under his own non-guild Troublemaker banner.

It was only because they'd already commenced the project under a particular corporate umbrella and were, at that point, unable to move it, that Rodriguez couldn't become involved.

They refer to Dimension as a non-signatory. Yet Dimension was owned by Disney -- which is a signatory.

And I've sold a screenplay to Dimension -- and I'm a guild member.

Because, of course, it wasn't exactly, precisely "Dimension" that bought it -- but a subsidiary corporation created by them, which *was* a signatory, leaving the parent company free and unencumbered.

NMS

Mac H.

09-10-2007, 09:00 AM

They create a specific corporate entity that is non-signatory that specifically exists to make the movie with him.

It's all legal. It's all above board.

If it were truly, as you indicate above, a "closed shop" -- no studio would be able to make a movie with this guy. But they can and they do.

NMSSo the conclusion is that the WGA does their best to make it a closed shop, but there are loopholes which can be exploited if they want to enough.

That's close enough to a 'closed shop' for my definition!

Mac
(PS: I'm not debating whether a 'closed shop' is good or bad - just that it is the approach the WGA has taken)

nmstevens

09-10-2007, 09:19 PM

So the conclusion is that the WGA does their best to make it a closed shop, but there are loopholes which can be exploited if they want to enough.

That's close enough to a 'closed shop' for my definition!

Mac
(PS: I'm not debating whether a 'closed shop' is good or bad - just that it is the approach the WGA has taken)

Or the conclusion is that both sides, labor and management, attempt to achieve maximum control over the pool of available resources.

Words are our business and it's important to understand the ways in which language is manipulated to serve those who use it.

"Closed" isn't a nice word.

A "closed" society is bad.

A "closed" mind is bad.

But "open" things -- they're good.

Open societies are good. Open minds are good.

Surely then, open shops must also be good.

Shouldn't everyone just get to choose? Isn't choice always the best way?

Free choice? Isn't that the best way? The American Way?

Doesn't that just make you want to stand up and salute -- something?

Surely then, corporations shouldn't be "forced" to have safety regulations. They should be able to choose. And if the people who work for them don't like the unsafe working conditions, they can go somewhere else -- to the corporations who *choose* to be safe.

Corporations shouldn't be *forced* not to pollute. They should be able to *choose* not to pollute -- and the American public will then get to support, with their dollars the non-polluting companies (because, of course, all corporations are completely honest and would never lie about whether they pollute or not so we'd know which ones did and which ones didn't) and thus the market would cause companies to *choose* not be polluting.

And workers should be able to *choose* -- no, even better -- they should have the *right* not to join unions and companies should be able hire union workers at union wages according to union contracts or have the *right* not to -- because you know, those nasty union regulations, they just get in the way of honest competition between American corporations here at home and who?

Other American corporations who've exported millions of jobs overseas to cheap unregulated companies without approriate safety regulations --

-- and maybe that's why we're now importing poisoned dogfood and lead-painted toys and god knows what else from unregulated, non-union, Chinese companies that maybe now don't seem like nearly as good a deal as they did a little while ago.

NMS

Mac H.

09-11-2007, 09:39 AM

"Closed" isn't a nice word.

A "closed" society is bad.

A "closed" mind is bad.

But "open" things -- they're good.

Open societies are good. Open minds are good.

Surely then, open shops must also be good.LOL !!

I always found it amusing that both the 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' sides of the debate avoided claiming that they were 'anti'-anything.

It doesn't matter if it's a nice word or not - that is what the approach taken. It seems we agree that the WGA tries to produce a 'closed shop' ... it is just the phrase you object to - Call it a 'shop where labour achieves control over the pool of available resources' instead! (Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, but it avoids the 'closed' word!)

I can see why you don't want to import products that are dangerous.. but to use your lead paint example, I'm uncertain how 'unregulated & non-union' means that products are less safe than just 'unregulated'. If not, then 'non-union' is irrelevant to the argument.

I also don't see how the lead paint example applies at all - if the aim is to ensure that the final product is safe ... how the hell does that relate to writing? And the equally odd thing is that the arrangement you are arguing for is the exact OPPOSITE of the lead paint example - the WGA agreement allows them to import scripts from overseas by non-WGA labour!

Again - I am totally unqualified to talk about the subtlety of labour law. All I know is that I live in a country that has the laws (no closed shops) that you seem to disagree with. On the normal 'Quality of life' metrics, it rates better than the USA. People live longer here. That possibly has very little to do with labour law ... but looking around it doesn't exactly seem to be a hell-hole.

On the other hand, we have a pretty non-existent film industry, and writers are poor. But I suspect that a change in union laws wouldn't help .. when we don't have much of an industry to employ us !!!

Good luck,

Mac

Boo_Radley

09-11-2007, 11:50 AM

I am, if you had to ask.

Actually, you asked...I was simply interested in hearing the answer as someone who's not a member of the Writer's Guild.

cynicallad

09-11-2007, 12:15 PM

Actually, you asked...I was simply interested in hearing the answer as someone who's not a member of the Writer's Guild.

Sorry, I was more mocking myself for the decidedly pro-labor tone of my posts. It's a good question on your part.

nmstevens

09-11-2007, 07:00 PM

[quote=Mac H.;1625166]LOL !!

I always found it amusing that both the 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' sides of the debate avoided claiming that they were 'anti'-anything.

It doesn't matter if it's a nice word or not - that is what the approach taken. It seems we agree that the WGA tries to produce a 'closed shop' ... it is just the phrase you object to - Call it a 'shop where labour achieves control over the pool of available resources' instead! (Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, but it avoids the 'closed' word!)

I can see why you don't want to import products that are dangerous.. but to use your lead paint example, I'm uncertain how 'unregulated & non-union' means that products are less safe than just 'unregulated'. If not, then 'non-union' is irrelevant to the argument.

I also don't see how the lead paint example applies at all - if the aim is to ensure that the final product is safe ... how the hell does that relate to writing? And the equally odd thing is that the arrangement you are arguing for is the exact OPPOSITE of the lead paint example - the WGA agreement allows them to import scripts from overseas by non-WGA labour!

Again - I am totally unqualified to talk about the subtlety of labour law. All I know is that I live in a country that has the laws (no closed shops) that you seem to disagree with. On the normal 'Quality of life' metrics, it rates better than the USA. People live longer here. That possibly has very little to do with labour law ... but looking around it doesn't exactly seem to be a hell-hole.

On the other hand, we have a pretty non-existent film industry, and writers are poor. But I suspect that a change in union laws wouldn't help .. when we don't have much of an industry to employ us !!!

Good luck,

It's funny to hear you talk about "quality of life" issues as between GB and the USA -- when the latter has universal healthcare -- that is, *socialized* medicine, guaranteed by the state and paid for taxes -- the ultimate *closed* system, while we have no such system, and are dominated by private insurance companies with powerful lobbyists whose primary job is to prevent it.

And whose interests do those lobbyists serve? The public interest? The customers? The patients? No. They serve the interests of the stockholders of their companies. They aren't looking to maximize the health of people, or to be "fair." They're looking to maximize profits.

And for those who say to the customers -- that is, people looking for insurance -- well, it's a free market, if one insurer doesn't provide the service you're looking for, just go looking for another.

The trouble is, they're all functioning according to the same ethos -- maximize profits for our shareholders -- an ethos that makes it reasonable to do things like cut the sickest patients and the poorest patients lose altogether.

Why bother insuring an indigent patient if your goal is to serve your stockholders?

That's perfectly good capitalism. It's perfectly sensible free market ideology.

It's just bad Humanity.

And that's part of the reason that we have as bad a health care system as we do -- the goverment's notion that somehow, in the free market, one can "compete" to be the most compassionate and the most generous and most giving health care provider.

It doesn't work that way.

As for the system in GB, sure, you can chose to go to a private doctor -- but correct me if I'm wrong. It's not as if you can choose a private doctor, and choose *not* to pay that percentage of your taxes that go to pay for public health care.

I think not.

Public services are the ultimate "closed shop."

Regarding unions and management and their practices, whatever you may choose to call them, it still only comes down to one thing and that's leverage.

Anyone who writes an article (was it you who quoted it?) and attaches the word "powerful" to the Writer's Guild is so disconnected from reality as to be not merely laugable but grotesque.

Anyone with any experience with the way things work in this business know that the writer is perhaps the least powerful person around. He does his work during pre-production, when things are at their least urgent, when at least in features, as a rule, nothing has been green-lit, when money is being spent more slowly than it will ever be spent during the entire process.

They are among the most if not *the* most replaceable entities in the process. Even when there's no strike around, writers are routinely replaced on a project without a second thought.

In TV, reality shows have come to dominate the airwaves to a greater extent than ever before, which means that the leverage we can bring to bear in that arena is even less than ever before.

In movies, the average development time from script to screen is something like eighteen months, which means that it's going to be six months or longer before any strike will have any meaningful effect on the feature pipeline.

The Producers' pockets are enormously deeper and whatever concessions they force on the WGA they'll be able to take as precedents to subsequent negotiations with SAG and the DGA.

If you really think that our union -- closed, open, or otherwise -- of a few thousand writers somehow has "power" in the face of five of the biggest international entertainment conglomerates in the world, then you are truly living in a world of imagination for more fantastic than you've ever seen on any movie screen.

If a so-called "closed" shop gives the guild a bit more leverage, my feeling is -- if we could increase that leverage ten-fold, it would hardly budge the weight of power and influence that those vast corporations bring to bear, individually and collectively against us.

NMS

J. Holmes

09-11-2007, 10:03 PM

Wow. There's a lot of postings on this! lol After reading through all I have to say, which isn't much, is that I agree with 'odo' (from his comment on the first page) on that pretty much everything taken seriously on productions are done through unions. I mean crimeny, look at how many unions get involved from nearly every section of a production. I know in Vancouver most of the manual labour crew is Teamster on nearly...and maybe every...mainstream production being produced there. I'm just saying, that I know when producers look to have something done the first time, they generally hire through unions.

Boo_Radley

09-12-2007, 12:21 PM

Sorry, I was more mocking myself for the decidedly pro-labor tone of my posts. It's a good question on your part.

My bad. I read attitude when there wasn't any. I'll fire up the peace pipe.:)

Mac H.

09-13-2007, 05:14 AM

Anyone who writes an article (was it you who quoted it?) and attaches the word "powerful" to the Writer's Guild is so disconnected from reality as to be not merely laugable but grotesque.
No disagreement here. And no, I didn't quote it.

If you really think that our union -- closed, open, or otherwise -- of a few thousand writers somehow has "power" in the face of five of the biggest international entertainment conglomerates in the world, then you are truly living in a world of imagination for more fantastic than you've ever seen on any movie screen.
Umm ...

Since you quoted my entire post in your reply, I'm assuming you are talking to me?

How on earth did you get the impression that I thought the WGA had 'power'? I didn't write the article. I didn't quote the article.

If you want my opinion on the amount of 'power' a writer has in Hollywood, here's an old joke:

"The blonde actress was so dumb ..... she was dating a writer!"

Mac

nmstevens

09-13-2007, 09:51 AM

No disagreement here. And no, I didn't quote it.

Umm ...

Since you quoted my entire post in your reply, I'm assuming you are talking to me?

How on earth did you get the impression that I thought the WGA had 'power'? I didn't write the article. I didn't quote the article.

If you want my opinion on the amount of 'power' a writer has in Hollywood, here's an old joke:

"The blonde actress was so dumb ..... she was dating a writer!"

Mac

My apologies -- with a number of people replying/cross replying on this thread, I'm afraid I rather lost track of who was quoting what or saying what to whom.

Oh, did you ever hear the joke about the screenwriter who dies and goes to heaven, and he's met by St. Peter at the pearly gates.

"Come in," St. Peter says, "This is heaven, and here, things are going to go just the way you want?"

"Really?" asks the screenwriter.

"Absolutely. You can still write screenplays, but it's not like on Earth. Here, budget is no object. You can write what you want. And you can have complete creative control. No studio notes. You get approval on the director, the cast -- any director you can name, so long as they're dead. Same with the cast. Laurence Olivier. James Dean. Anybody. You name it. Plus, you have Droit Moral, just like in France, so nobody can change a word of your script without your permission. The whole deal."

"Wow, that's incredible."

"And God himself is the producer, so you don't have to worry about getting a green light."

"Wow, this really is heaven."

"Now, I'm going to take you in, you can talk to God, tell him what the movie is."

"That's fantastic."

"Oh, by the way, one thing I may have forgot to mention. God's got this girlfriend who wants to be actress --"

NMS