# Strike Updates



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

AMPTP (12/7/07): "We're disappointed to report that talks between the AMPTP and WGA have broken down yet again. Quite frankly, we're puzzled and disheartened by an ongoing WGA negotiating strategy that seems designed to delay or derail talks rather than facilitate an end to this strike. Union negotiators in our industry have successfully concluded 306 major agreements with the AMPTP since its inception in 1982. The WGA organizers sitting across the table from us have never concluded even one industry accord."

WGA (12/7/07): "Today, after three days of discussions, the AMPTP came back to us with a proposal that included a total rejection of our proposal on Internet streaming of December 3. They are holding to their offer of a $250 fixed residual for unlimited one year streaming after a six-week window of free use. They still insist on the DVD rate for Internet downloads. They refuse to cover original material made for new media."

Source: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/

Personally I see both sides but I lean towards siding with the AMPTP.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Me too. The WGA's statement, just by itself, smacks of, "They didn't change their minds and do what we wanted them to do." My impression is that they've saved up for a long strike, and they're going to burn down their strike fund, regardless of how that adversely affects others, in an attempt to hurt networks, studios and production companies. >shrug<


----------



## JDHutt25 (Dec 27, 2004)

Here's the full text of the WGA East statement:

Today, after three days of discussions, the AMPTP came back to us with a proposal that included a total rejection of our proposal on Internet streaming of December 3rd.

They are holding to their offer of a $250 fixed residual for unlimited one year streaming after a six-week window of free use. They still insist on the DVD rate for Internet downloads. 

They refuse to cover original material made for new media. 

This offer was accompanied by an ultimatum: the AMPTP demands we give up several of our proposals, including Fair Market Value (our protection against vertical integration and self-dealing), animation, reality, and, most crucially, any proposal that uses distributor&#8217;s gross as a basis for residuals. This would require us to concede most of our Internet proposal as a precondition for continued bargaining. The AMPTP insists we let them do to the Internet what they did to home video.

We received a similar ultimatum through back channels prior to the discussions of November 4th. At that time, we were assured that if we took DVDs off the table, we would get a fair offer on new media issues. That offer never materialized. 

We reject the idea of an ultimatum. Although a number of items we have on the table are negotiable, we cannot be forced to bargain with ourselves. The AMPTP has many proposals on the table that are unacceptable to writers, but we have never delivered ultimatums. 

As we prepared our counter-offer, at 6:05 p.m., Nick Counter came and said to us, in the mediator&#8217;s presence: &#8220;We are leaving. When you write us a letter saying you will take all these items off the table, we will reschedule negotiations with you.&#8221; Within minutes, the AMPTP had posted a lengthy statement announcing the breakdown of negotiations.

We remain ready and willing to negotiate, no matter how intransigent our bargaining partners are, because the stakes are simply too high. We were prepared to counter their proposal tonight, and when any of them are ready to return to the table, we&#8217;re here, ready to make a fair deal.


John F. Bowman
Chairman, Negotiating Committee
Contract 2007


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Does this really belong in "TV Show Talk"?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> Does this really belong in "TV Show Talk"?


I think so, since this directly impacts TV shows in general.

In any case, read Deadline Hollywood Daily for some more in-depth reporting on the strike. Basically, what seems to have happened is that the producers issued an ultimatum: remove pretty much everything you want from the table, and we'll talk. Obviously, this isn't what anyone would call "negotiating." It's what most would call "demanding."

The writers' team took a bit to parse the ultimatum and ultimately decided that's exactly what it was. They were crafting a "counter-proposal" when the producers sent someone to the writers' suite to say "you either pull everything you want off the table, or we're calling off the talks." Moments later, the producers - who already had a press release crafted and everything, as if they had planned the talks to fall apart - walked out, leaving the writers behind.

DHD has the statements that the producers issued to the writers in case there is any doubt about the veracity of this story.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

Where else would it go?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

"Happy Hour", maybe.

According to the description, "TV Show Talk" is a place to "Talk about your favorite shows".

Strike talk is not about particular shows, it's about the entertainment industry in general.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

Hardly anyone would look for that there, thats non TV stuff and this affects most TV shows.


----------



## anom (Apr 18, 2005)

I think there are people who, just by their own temperaments, will side with management, and some who will similarly side with labor. I'm in the latter category, as a general rule.

The problem with this strike is that while the general issue is easy enough to understand, the details are arcane enough to obscure which side is being unreasonable, or if they both are. 

I do think the writers have done a good job of showing how the media companies when protecting their copyrights have made a case that their ability to exclusively present their content online is extremely valuable, but doing a complete about-face when the writers ask to be paid for that content. Suddenly they have no idea whether this internet thing is going to catch on, or whether there's any money there.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I definitely haven't spent much time researching this strike but what I can't understand is why the writers for Jay Leno expected to be paid (out of Leno's pocket) during the strike. What kind of strike is that? Did I interpret that situation correctly?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> I definitely haven't spent much time researching this strike but what I can't understand is why the writers for Jay Leno expected to be paid (out of Leno's pocket) during the strike. What kind of strike is that? Did I interpret that situation correctly?


No, you misunderstood. Plus, I don't think anyone expected to be paid.

What Leno (and the other late night hosts) have offered to do was to pay the salaries for the non-writing production crew - the lighting, sound, camera, and other people that are affected by the strike through no action on their part.

The impressive part is that Kimmel is doing the same, even though he is paid a LOT less than the other late night hosts. Some of Kimmel's friends are concerned that by doing so, Kimmel will go broke very quickly.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> I definitely haven't spent much time researching this strike but what I can't understand is why the writers for Jay Leno expected to be paid (out of Leno's pocket) during the strike. What kind of strike is that? Did I interpret that situation correctly?


I don't think that's about the writers. It's about all the other people who work(ed) on the Tonight Show, who aren't being paid because the writers are on strike and the show is therefore off the air. Production people, camera operators, cue card people, lighting people, makeup people, etc. People expect Leno to pay his other staff when the writers are striking. They don't expect him to pay the writers while they are striking.

At least that's how I understand it.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

aindik said:


> People expect Leno to pay his other staff when the writers are striking. They don't expect him to pay the writers while they are striking.


What I don't understand is why the *writers *aren't paying the other staff. After all, it's the writers' strike that's causing the other workers to go without pay.


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

anom said:


> I think there are people who, just by their own temperaments, will side with management, and some who will similarly side with labor. I'm in the latter category, as a general rule.


I completely agree. I am someone who generally sides with management. But that is due to owning and running my own company at a very young age.

Writers in general make very good money, and they should do the job they were hired too. Please don't link or parade in front of me someone who doesn't. In any industry there are people who do very well and people who don't. That's normal in any industry and not specific to being a writer of a TV show.

Now will come next is someone telling me how the writers work 60+ hours a week. Boohoo! I've worked 60+ hours a week plus gone to College fulltime, and I can guarantee I didn't make as much as writers.

I am currently in IT. I work 60+ hours a week for *way* less then what the average writer makes. Plus I don't get any residuals. So cry me a river.

Both sides are being very greedy and the only people who are really suffering is the below the line workers who are going to have a miserable Christmas.

Thank you AMPTP and WGA you can explain to little Billy why his Dad couldn't afford Christmas dinner this year.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

needo said:


> I completely agree. I am someone who generally sides with management. But that is due to owning and running my own company at a very young age.
> 
> Writers in general make very good money, and they should do the job they were hired too. Please don't link or parade in front of me someone who doesn't. In any industry there are people who do very well and people who don't. That's normal in any industry and not specific to being a writer of a TV show.
> 
> ...



This is an ongoing negotiation. I do legal negotiations for a living. The WGA made a series of proposals - laid them all out for the AMPTP and said, "let's negotiate." The AMPTP's response was, "take all of your proposals off the table and we'll talk."

WTF? Sorry, that's not going to happen. Not if the WGA has anything approaching competent counsel. Rule #1 of negotiations: Never negotiate against yourself. If the AMPTP doesn't like the WGA proposals, it's on them to put together a counter-offer. But it's becoming increasingly clear that the AMPTP isn't really interested in negotiating. They have instead issued a series of ultimatums. They've said, "accept what we offer or we won't negotiate any more." I don't know about the world of labor negotiations, but in my line of work if one of the parties were to make such a statement in the presence of a mediator, they would be subjecting themselves to sanctions for refusing to negotiate in good faith. That's not how negotiation works.

Until the AMPTP actually engages the WGA, instead of coming to the table with an "our way or the highway" attitude, the strike won't get resolved. It's ridiculous to hang the blame on the WGA for refusing to negotiate against their own proposals.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

I don't know where both sides think the fatted calf is but I can assure you they are both doing a damn fine job of trying to kill it off.

When last we left this, the WGA was complaining that internet downloads got sold at a discount. The AMPTP agreed to make it the same as DVD once a promotional period was over. Now something new seems to be a sticking point. I don't think the WGA really wants to settle or the line wouldn't keep moving. Did I miss something?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> What I don't understand is why the *writers *aren't paying the other staff. After all, it's the writers' strike that's causing the other workers to go without pay.


Because Jay Leno is rich. 

In the case of Leno, though, I think he is listed as one of the writers on his own show.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

The major point to this strike is the "new media" issue. The problem is that new media - internet streaming and internet delivery - is growing and growing fast, and right now, their current contract does not have a strong enough position on that topic. Given another year or two, more people may be viewing programming online than on television.

The studios have been known to take advantage of the fact that the writers' contract is not strong on this area. Case in point: internet delivered mini-episodes of Battlestar Galactica. The writers crafted the scripts as they would for any episode... handed them off... only to be told "Oh, sorry, these are 'promotion,' not an episode... you don't get paid. Sorry." Oh, and the whole time, the studios are making money by traffic going to and through their website, specifically to view this unique creative material.

While I'm rather anti-organized labor on the whole, the situation is what it is... it would take a radical paradigm shift on both the producers and the writers sides to eliminate organized labor. So, in the mean time, you have to work within the system that exists.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> When last we left this, the WGA was complaining that internet downloads got sold at a discount. The AMPTP agreed to make it the same as DVD once a promotional period was over. Now something new seems to be a sticking point. I don't think the WGA really wants to settle or the line wouldn't keep moving. Did I miss something?


Why is they're putting a "promotional period" of 6 weeks on streaming video in which they have inserted ads and are generating revenue. That's not a promotion, that's a market. And I'm sure that you'll find that most people who watch the videos online are watching to either catch a recent episode they missed or to watch the most recent episode after series of reruns. The vast majority of these types of viewings will be within 6 weeks of it being posted online.


----------



## Martin Tupper (Dec 18, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> What I don't understand is why the *writers *aren't paying the other staff. After all, it's the writers' strike that's causing the other workers to go without pay.


The writers are still paying the rest of the staff the same amount that they paid them before the strike. Bupkis.

Seriously, it a "chicken or the egg" argument. The staff isn't working because there are any new episodes to shoot, because the writers are on strike, beacuse their contract expired, because the producers refused to negotiate...


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I don't know where both sides think the fatted calf is but I can assure you they are both doing a damn fine job of trying to kill it off.
> 
> When last we left this, the WGA was complaining that internet downloads got sold at a discount. The AMPTP agreed to make it the same as DVD once a promotional period was over. Now something new seems to be a sticking point. I don't think the WGA really wants to settle or the line wouldn't keep moving. Did I miss something?


I think what you missed was that AMPTP didn't simply agree to make Internet residuals work the same way as DVDs. They attached several MAJOR strings:
1) Payment levels would not be based on Fair Market Value of the material, but only on the actual contracted payment amount. The doesn't seem so objectionable at first, until you consider the vertical integration of these companies. Not working on a Fair Market Value basis means that, for example, NBC|Universal could take an episode written for a show produced by NBC|Universal and put it on the NBC television website. Because the production company and the TV network are owned by the same entity, they can give themselves a sweetheart deal, whereby the episode is "licensed" to NBC television for a penny. Then, the writers would get their percentage based on that absurdly low license fee. The AMPTP said that this item was non-negotiable.

2) The "promotional period" issue was declared non-negotiable by the AMPTP. They were asserting an exclusive right to income generated by new media episodes during the highest viewing time period for those episodes. And, of course, they have exclusive control over how long episodes remain online. So they could simply remove episodes after six weeks - allowing them to reap 100% of the income from streaming, satisfying the majority of viewers trying to catch up on a missed episode, and shutting out the writers completely from any residuals for those episodes. Even if they left the videos online, the residuals they were offering were a one-time, flat-fee amount for one year's worth of streaming - not really a residual in the traditional use of the term.

3) WGA was already complaining that the DVD rate was too low. But they were willing to back off on their demand to increase the DVD rate in exchange for bargaining over downloads. The AMPTP ultimatum unilaterally applied the DVD rate to downloads as well.

All of those items are problematic, but #1 seems especially ridiculous. There's no way that the WGA can agree to a method of residual calculation that doesn't apply some sort of FMV formula. The real-life examples of self-dealing by the production companies and networks (not just speculation on what's possible) have been egregious. They may as well just agree to give all new media rights to the producers for free.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

Just to back up a bit, I don't get why AMPTP is bargaining for the whole industy. The UAW has to cut separate contracts with each auto company, if the big three tried to negotiate through an industry association there'd serious anti-trust objections raised.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

AJRitz said:


> 3) WGA was already complaining that the DVD rate was too low. But they were willing to back off on their demand to increase the DVD rate in exchange for bargaining over downloads. The AMPTP ultimatum unilaterally applied the DVD rate to downloads as well.


One other element about #3 is that the lower rate for DVDs was agreed to by the writers because the studios quite reasonably maintained they had to bear much larger costs for packaging and distribution of a physical product. IIRC, the original rate was negotiated erafor videocassetes, and was not renegotiated when a vastly cheaper physical medium (DVD) was introduced. In any case, since the writers conceded a lower rate for VHS/DVD vs broadcast on the basis of studio-borne distribution costs, it seems perfectly reasonable they would want to know why the distribution cost rationale does not apply both ways.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

vman41 said:


> Just to back up a bit, I don't get why AMPTP is bargaining for the whole industy. The UAW has to cut separate contracts with each auto company, if the big three tried to negotiate through an industry association there'd serious anti-trust objections raised.


This isn't really my area of federal labor and employment law, but IIRC the National Labor Relations Act specifically exempts collective bargaining from antitrust coverage. The UAW negotiates separately with each auto company because that's how the UAW and the car companies chose to do it - probably because the car companies don't want to share some of the information that is used in negotiations with their competitors. I suspect that there's less trade-secret info at issue in television production.


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

Fleegle said:


> Why is they're putting a "promotional period" of 6 weeks on streaming video in which they have inserted ads and are generating revenue. That's not a promotion, that's a market. And I'm sure that you'll find that most people who watch the videos online are watching to either catch a recent episode they missed or to watch the most recent episode after series of reruns. The vast majority of these types of viewings will be within 6 weeks of it being posted online.


The producers/studios have to make money somewhere. They cannot just send it all to the writers. The producers/studios front all the money to get a show on the air. Not the writers.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

aindik said:


> Because Jay Leno is rich.
> 
> In the case of Leno, though, I think he is listed as one of the writers on his own show.


Yeah all the late night Talk Show hosts except Carson Daily are members of the WGA.


----------



## JMikeD (Jun 10, 2002)

needo said:


> Writers in general make very good money,


Source?


----------



## JDHutt25 (Dec 27, 2004)

JMikeD said:


> Source?


Hype and misinformation?


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

AJRitz said:


> This isn't really my area of federal labor and employment law, but IIRC the National Labor Relations Act specifically exempts collective bargaining from antitrust coverage. The UAW negotiates separately with each auto company because that's how the UAW and the car companies chose to do it - probably because the car companies don't want to share some of the information that is used in negotiations with their competitors. I suspect that there's less trade-secret info at issue in television production.


I also suspect it is the nature of the business. Writers can work for multiple companies at the same time. They are not only employed by one company in some cases. Unlike with the Auto Unions, where if someone works for Ford, they are not likely working for GM at the same time.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

vman41 said:


> Just to back up a bit, I don't get why AMPTP is bargaining for the whole industy. The UAW has to cut separate contracts with each auto company, if the big three tried to negotiate through an industry association there'd serious anti-trust objections raised.


Because this isn't really a labor vs. management issue. This is really just one union negotiating against another union. The AMPTP is simply an organization of producers who have agreed to use the WGA to write their material. Because of the strong union background in this industry, nobody does any work if they don't go through these entities.

If the writers had contracts with each studio, then it would make sense for the WGA to be negotiating those deals separately. However, the writers work for the producers, not the studios. The producers put the entire package together and then go to the studio and get a contract for that project, which includes all production costs. Therefore, the studios have nothing to do with these negotiations.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

needo said:


> The producers/studios have to make money somewhere. They cannot just send it all to the writers. The producers/studios front all the money to get a show on the air. Not the writers.


Dude, the writers already get around 1.4 - 1.6% of the revenue from broadcast. They really should be getting the same percentage from revenue from other forms of broadcast. The WGA sees broadcast television dwindling over the next 15 years, to be replaced by for-profit streaming video. If they let the AMPTP have their way, they'll end up losing almost all residuals by the time this contract expires.

Because the writers only work about half the time, they rely on residuals to get by when they're not employed.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Martin Tupper said:


> The writers are still paying the rest of the staff the same amount that they paid them before the strike. Bupkis


Before the strike, Jay Leno was paying the staff bupkis too. NBC was paying them. Now, they're not, and people want Leno to pick up the slack.


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

JMikeD said:


> Source?


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/business/media/05writers.html


----------



## JDHutt25 (Dec 27, 2004)

needo said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/business/media/05writers.html


Out of that article, you got that "in general writers make very good money?"


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

Fleegle said:


> Dude, the writers already get around 1.4 - 1.6% of the revenue from broadcast. They really should be getting the same percentage from revenue from other forms of broadcast. The WGA sees broadcast television dwindling over the next 15 years, to be replaced by for-profit streaming video. If they let the AMPTP have their way, they'll end up losing almost all residuals by the time this contract expires.
> Because the writers only work about half the time, they rely on residuals to get by when they're not employed.


I understand and I agree they should get something, and quite possibly more then they are getting now. However the writers are not investing any of their own cash to get a show on the air.

Hah. There's an idea. Have the writers invest their own money in getting a show on the air. I wonder if we would get a lot better programming.


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

JDHutt25 said:


> Out of that article, you got that "in general writers make very good money?"


You don't consider a average of $200k/year very good money? Can I have your job?


----------



## rondotcom (Feb 13, 2005)

JDHutt25 said:


> Hype and misinformation?


True. Some writers get a lot of money. At any one time about of WGA Members are unemployed. The figures you see bandied about arean average. Put Bill gates in a room of homeless people and the average salary is hundreds of millions.

Plus these are not works for hire. These are scripts wriiten for TV airing. Says so in the contract. They aren't scripts for the Internet. That's a seperate job.

Besides what's wrong with the WGA's percentage offer. If, as the Suits claim there is no money on the Internets then 2.5 percent of nothin is nothin.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

aindik said:


> Before the strike, Jay Leno was paying the staff bupkis too. NBC was paying them. Now, they're not, and people want Leno to pick up the slack.


I don't think anyone "expected" Leno to pay the staff. I think he offered to do so as a PR move because as a writer, he's supporting the strike and therefore the show isn't being produced, but he's the only one working on the show that actually makes enough to cover the salaries. As a member of the WGA and also as someone with his name very publicly attached to a TV show, he doesn't want to start reading stories about how NBC laid off the entire staff of "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" and how many of them are broke and being foreclosed on, being evicted, not having Christmas, etc. That would look bad for both the union and Jay personally.


----------



## JDHutt25 (Dec 27, 2004)

needo said:


> You don't consider a average of $200k/year very good money? Can I have your job?


That average is skewed by the top writers making millions. Your "average" writer makes decent money, when they are writing. Of course, the average writer is unemployed for at least a portion of every year.


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

JDHutt25 said:


> That average is skewed by the top writers making millions. Your "average" writer makes decent money, when they are writing. Of course, the average writer is unemployed for at least a portion of every year.


My turn!

Source?


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

needo said:


> My turn!
> 
> Source?


I believe the WGA's employment records are public information. They've made this statement several times.

Hell, the article YOU posted mentions that on average, 48% of WGA members are not currently employed.


----------



## JDHutt25 (Dec 27, 2004)

needo said:


> My turn!
> 
> Source?


There is no show that is in production all year. When the show's production shuts down, the writers don't have a job anymore, most will get hired back IF the show has another season, others won't. Source? The people I know that write for television.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

needo said:


> You don't consider a average of $200k/year very good money? Can I have your job?


Given the vast inequities written about in the article, an "average" figure of the writers' annual income is not very meaningful. If Shonda Rimes is pulling in $5 Mil, she can drive the average wage figure up to a very big number, even if nearly all the other writers in the sample are barely scraping by. The simple average also does not take into account the high unemployment figure in the industry.

I'd be a lot more interested in seeing median or mode figures -- that include those who are unemployed but actively seeking.


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

Fleegle said:


> I believe the WGA's employment records are public information. They've made this statement several times.
> 
> Hell, the article YOU posted mentions that on average, 45% of WGA members are not currently employed.


I was kidding when I asked for a source. I did read the article I posted.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think anyone "expected" Leno to pay the staff.


Really? You must not have read the stories about how NBC laid off the staff and Leno hadn't offered to pick up the tab himself. There were lots and lots of negative stories until Leno decided that he was going to pay an estimated $250K a week to pay for the non-working staff.

My point is that throughout the industry, there are dozens (hundreds?) of non-writing staff out of work because of the writers strike. Not just on the _Tonight Show_, but on every show. Every movie. The writers like to focus on how they're making things tough for the studios while they have their strike fund (and fundraisers) to keep them going. But what about the other staff?

How come the WGA hasn't offered to pay the salaries of out-of-work entertainment industry workers? How come they haven't held fundraisers to help out these other people who they put out of work?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I thought one of the previous threads about this said that industry standard for a staff writer was about $70k per year. When you factor in that they don't work the full year and are often "between jobs," that amount really doesn't seem all that cushy.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Really? You must not have read the stories about how NBC laid off the staff and Leno hadn't offered to pick up the tab himself. There were lots and lots of negative stories until Leno decided that he was going to pay an estimated $250K a week to pay for the non-working staff.
> 
> My point is that throughout the industry, there are dozens (hundreds?) of non-writing staff out of work because of the writers strike. Not just on the _Tonight Show_, but on every show. Every movie. The writers like to focus on how they're making things tough for the studios while they have their strike fund (and fundraisers) to keep them going. But what about the other staff?
> 
> How come the WGA hasn't offered to pay the salaries of out-of-work entertainment industry workers? How come they haven't held fundraisers to help out these other people who they put out of work?


I guess I hadn't seen those stories. I only read that Jay and Dave were paying their staffs when the issue came up with Carson Daly going back into production to prevent his staff from getting laid off.

But overall I agree with you. I think it's pretty disingenuous of the writers to do what they're doing while hurting the average employee on the set. I'm sure the writers would be pissed if they weren't being paid while the camera operators were on strike.

But having said that, I'm sure one of the reasons Jay and Dave stepped up is because their names are publicly attached to their shows. When the staff of My Name is Earl gets laid off, nobody knows who Greg Garcia is, so there won't be stories about that. But since Jay and Dave are household names, any story that could be written about how they're basking in their millions while their staffs are scrounging for pennies to buy their kid a Christmas present would be printed in a heartbeat.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

Ruth said:


> Given the vast inequities written about in the article, an "average" figure of the writers' annual income is not very meaningful. If Shonda Rimes is pulling in $5 Mil, she can drive the average wage figure up to a very big number, even if nearly all the other writers in the sample are barely scraping by. The simple average also does not take into account the high unemployment figure in the industry.
> 
> I'd be a lot more interested in seeing median or mode figures -- that include those who are unemployed but actively seeking.


There was an Op-Ed piece in the LA Times recently, written by a WGA board member, so take with whatever amount of salt you feel appropriate. I did not find a link to that article, but the relevant quote about the median is reproduced in this commentary, quoted here:



> The median income of screen and television writers from their guild-covered employment is $5,000 a year, in part because almost half our members dont work in any given year.


----------



## justinkwaugh (Oct 7, 2002)

The 200k/year average was stated in the article as being for working members. I read that as meaning unemployed writers were not included in the average.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

A genuine median income number would be much more useful than an average. I think that the 200K average number is highly skewed because the article itself said that the source of that number was the studios and networks. They have a vested interest in pumping up that number to make the writers look greedy. The WGA has the 5000 number, also unrealistically portraying their members as paupers.

There is another issue here that I don't think anyone has addressed. Most of the other unions are supporting the writers because they see an advantage in the writers getting a really good deal here. If the writers manage to get concessions, then the next union negotiating can site this agreement, putting them in a stronger negotiating position. If the writers make a bad deal, the others unions are in a weaker position to request wider residual compensation. This is a test case for many future upcoming negotiations. I don't remember where I heard this, but it was clear from the story I was watching, that both sides see this as a test case.

I am the type who usually sides with the management point of view, and I suspect that the primary interest of most unions now is not the workers benefit, but their own (the unions) continued existence. In this case, however, I see the financial doings of the entertainment industry, and the money that they are making, and I am inclined to be more sympathetic to the writers. When a studio can, with a straight face, claim that the monitory bottom line of a movie like Coming to America was in the red, then I have no choice but to distrust anything they say about money. The only reason I use that old example is because it is the only one I know of that has been publicly available, and that is only because of the legal action over that film.


----------



## Rosincrans (May 4, 2006)

According to Paramount, Forest Gump lost money.


> Paramount deducted $50 million in "Forrest Gump" production costs, a distribution and marketing fee of about $74 million, $62 million in distribution expenses, payments to Hanks and Zemeckis of close to $62 million and $6 million in interest.
> 
> The result: a loss of more than $60 million.


They used these accounting tricks to screw the screenwriter and original author out of their percentage of the "net profits". This is the same sort of thing they're trying to get the WGA to agree to for the internet instead of percentages of the gross.


> In the Buchwald case, Superior Court Judge Harvey Schneider ruled the Eddie Murphy hit "Coming to America" was based on a Buchwald movie idea and deserved compensation. But the columnist and a partner were net profit participants, and Paramount claimed the movie had lost money.
> 
> Murphy said during the trial that net profits were "monkey points" because only fools would believe they were worth anything.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

Rosincrans said:


> Paramount deducted $50 million in "Forrest Gump" production costs, a distribution and marketing fee of about $74 million, $62 million in distribution expenses, payments to Hanks and Zemeckis of close to $62 million and $6 million in interest.
> 
> The result: a loss of more than $60 million.


Just to establish context, according to that article, this $60 million loss was reported against worldwide ticket sales of $661 million and unspecified, but "strong" initial home video sales.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

The studios have a long and vast history of screwing the talent.

They've done it on films for decades with their accounting tricks.

They've done it on TV for years and years when they sell shows to themselves for below market, so they can cheat the creators out of their cut.

And they're doing it now. Brazingly going on business TV shows over the past few years bragging about how much they were going to make via online, and how it didn't matter to them if people watch it on TV or online, that they still get paid.

All the while saying that they need more time to figure out if they're making any money via online means of distribution.

-smak-


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

By the way I know 30 Rock actually did a live performance of the show off Broadway, to raise money for the staff members of the show.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

What's interesting is that talent, itself, doesn't have the wherewithal to establish their own production companies that are generous to anyone other than their founders.


----------



## TiVoDan (Jun 2, 2002)

The way I see this issue, it really doesn't matter who's right or wrong, or even what's fair and what's not fair. The writers have every right to ask for whatever they want since it is their labor the are selling. And the producers have every right to put any limit on what they are willing to offer to the writers.

This issue is about coming to an Agreement, that both sides can be happy with. As long as both side is inflexible and demanding, that isn't going to happen. what is happening is that both sides have adopted a win-loose mindset, that ultimately will lead to a loose-loose scenerio. 

Good negotiation is about being willing to look for the win-win scenario. That requires both parties to be willing to give up some of what they want, in order to to get the rest of what they want, and giving an incentive for the other party to do likewise by ensuring that they come out head of where they would be if the negotiations fail. So far neither side appears to grasp the concept of win-win


----------



## smallwonder (Jun 13, 2001)

TiVoDan said:


> This issue is about coming to an Agreement, that both sides can be happy with. As long as both side is inflexible and demanding, that isn't going to happen. what is happening is that both sides have adopted a win-loose mindset, that ultimately will lead to a loose-loose scenerio.


You assume that the people negotiating actually have any interest in seeing the other party win anything. When one side has what they perceive as an advantageous position, they are more likely to choose the "winner takes all" approach and disregard consideration that they might be falling prey to a "lose-lose" strategy.

In reading this thread, I was amused because the producers were demanding that the critical WGA item(s) be removed from the table. At my workplace, if management wants to implement new rules A, B & C, the Union wants to negotiate the kitchen sink and re-inserts items A-Z,a-z,aa-zz back on the table.

In the grand scheme of things, I remain disinterested in the whole matter unless and until it hits me in my wallet. I have at least 10 books on my must-read list with which I can occupy my mind in lieu of reality TV programming.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

AJRitz said:


> They've said, "accept what we offer or we won't negotiate any more." I don't know about the world of labor negotiations, but in my line of work if one of the parties were to make such a statement in the presence of a mediator, they would be subjecting themselves to sanctions for refusing to negotiate in good faith. That's not how negotiation works.


I've never understood what's wrong with a side having an ultimatum. Let's say the writers and producers eventually come to an agreement; call it Agreement A. Now, had the producers offered Agreement A during the last negotiations, but the writers initially refused it, are you saying that now the producers should be forced to come up with Agreement B?

If one side truly wants their way or the highway, then they need to accept that the highway might be the outcome. But if they are willing to accept that, then why can't they hold strong to their demands?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

TiVoDan said:


> The way I see this issue, it really doesn't matter who's right or wrong, or even what's fair and what's not fair. The writers have every right to ask for whatever they want since it is their labor the are selling. And the producers have every right to put any limit on what they are willing to offer to the writers.


However, do keep in mind that the writers are not exercising a "right", but rather are using a "privilege" granted to them by the NLRB. You couldn't get everyone together in your discipline and do what they're doing (i.e., collectively bargain) without permission from the government.



TiVoDan said:


> This issue is about coming to an Agreement, that both sides can be happy with. As long as both side is inflexible and demanding, that isn't going to happen. what is happening is that both sides have adopted a win-loose mindset, that ultimately will lead to a loose-loose scenerio.


I think a lose-lose resolution is inevitable, because the industry itself is facing substantial competition from other leisure pursuits, newly-available substantially due to advances in the deployment of technology, and also is facing additional substantial revenue erosion because the value they can provide to the folks who pay for it all (advertisers) is being eroded by advances in the deployment of technology.

This isn't a unique situation: The UAW and automakers have struggled for forty years with the idea that there simply is going to be less money to go around notably because cars from elsewhere in the world had become both better and more readily available. Paralleling that, each month more and more folks say that seventh generation video game systems, Web 2.0, and such provide arguably better entertainment than television, enough to erode the viewer-base for television -- and that's the impact of innovation all by itself. What the UAW and the automakers _didn't_ face is the second front fighting against them: The increasing ability for the customer-base to undercut the _value _of what the industry (management+labor as a unit) offer, since we haven't taken to the auto industry's analog of "skipping the commercials" (i.e., public transportation).



TiVoDan said:


> Good negotiation is about being willing to look for the win-win scenario. That requires both parties to be willing to give up some of what they want, in order to to get the rest of what they want, and giving an incentive for the other party to do likewise by ensuring that they come out head of where they would be if the negotiations fail. So far neither side appears to grasp the concept of win-win


I agree that that is a good point, but as I indicated above, there very well may never had been any "win" to be had by either side, no matter what they do. This strike may simply be about trying to lose as little as possible.


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

http://laist.com/2007/12/12/mutant_enemy_day.php

Eliza makes for one sexy striker.
Summer looks pretty good too.

<sarcasm>Sarah Michelle Gellar sent donuts. What a team player! </sarcasm>


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

Summer Glau looks damn sexy!


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

whitson77 said:


> Summer Glau looks damn sexy!


+71

Eliza too.

-smak-


----------



## dansee (Oct 23, 2003)

Now there's a picket line I'd enjoy hanging out on!


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

AJRitz said:


> I think what you missed was that AMPTP didn't simply agree to make Internet residuals work the same way as DVDs. They attached several MAJOR strings:
> 
> All of those items are problematic, but #1 seems especially ridiculous. There's no way that the WGA can agree to a method of residual calculation that doesn't apply some sort of FMV formula. The real-life examples of self-dealing by the production companies and networks (not just speculation on what's possible) have been egregious. They may as well just agree to give all new media rights to the producers for free.


Thanks for helping me understand the issues a bit more. I missed your earlier post about the odd negotiation tactics of the AMPTP. That plus this paints things in a different light.

I still think both side get paid plenty but I agree that the risk/reward system that was the lynch pin ( smaller upfront in return for more money on the backend ) is being turned upside down by this current position by the AMPTP and while I am generally anti-union, I think they have a significant and reasoned objection to the current revenue sharing ( or lack thereof).


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I cannot find it in the on-line edition of the paper but the L A Times had an article about how the studeos had absolutely no interest in negotiating and were just trying to wait the writers out. The writer mentioned that some never even wanted to give the writers residiuals. Sounds like we will be watching our Tivos until they are dry and then renting movies.

I do miss Jon Stewart.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

needo said:


> Eliza makes for one sexy striker.
> Summer looks pretty good too.
> 
> <sarcasm>Sarah Michelle Gellar sent donuts. What a team player! </sarcasm>


At least she didn't dot the "i" with a heart.

I don't know why she thinks she's too cool for school with the ME folks. It's not like her career has skyrocketed since she bailed on Buffy.

[remainder QFT]


----------



## smallwonder (Jun 13, 2001)

mrmike said:


> At least she didn't dot the "i" with a heart.
> 
> I don't know why she thinks she's too cool for school with the ME folks. It's not like her career has skyrocketed since she bailed on Buffy.
> 
> [remainder QFT]


Now, now, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that she might have had a schedule conflict. I note that neither Alyson Hanigan, David Boreanaz, Alex Denisof (Alyson's hubby), Charisma Carpenter, or Anthony Head made an appearance either - nor bothered to send refreshments.

Frankly, aside from Joss, I suspect the others did it for publicity and to stay in Joss' good graces.


----------



## pantherman007 (Jan 4, 2003)

Fassade said:


> Just to establish context, according to that article, this $60 million loss was reported against worldwide ticket sales of $661 million and unspecified, but "strong" initial home video sales.


I think most would agree that this is fuzzy accounting that favors the studios and screws those with residuals. But in the ideal setup, where does an appropriate risk/reward arrangement come in with stinkers like the Golden Compass? (Published $180MM budget, privately estimated up to $250MM, and a pathetic box office draw)

I like the idea of writers (and others) getting a bigger share of what they create, but I have to think the studios are worried about sharing more of the blank ink while being stuck with all of the red.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

Here is something posted by Joe Michael Straczinski on the moderated B5 newsgroup. For those that don't know who Joe (JMS as he he better know as) is, he is a writer/producer who created Babylon5, as well as being showrunner on various shows over the years. But he is a writer 1st and foremost.

This is in answer to a question about how the '88 writer's strike is different from the current strike. TLT in this context is "Babylon 5: The Lost Tales" a direct to DVD release of new B5 stories.

"It differs in every way, which is what the studios haven't yet fully
grasped.

During the shooting on TLT, I had dinner with several folks including
an exec from Warner Bros. when the subject of the coming contract
expiration came up. And the fellow from WB, whose name I'll omit for
now, was practically cackling about it...saying that they already had
their positions in place, and that they were looking to the WGA
fracturing and falling apart as it always had in the past during these
negotiations, splitting into factions and internal argumentrs and
dissension, while they just sit there and wait for the implosion to
tell us what the terms will be, and which we would then accept.

And I remember thinking, pal, you have NO idea the full extent and
nature of the wood chipper you're about to walk into face-first.

See, the thing of it is, on one level, he was right, that's how things
WERE. But things had changed. There is a tendency, in military
strategy, for the generals to fight each new war using the techniques
and tactics that had worked in the last war, often without
understanding that the shape of the battlefield had changed. We saw
it in the Revolutionary War, where British soldiers marched in strict
formation into the birth of guerilla warfare; in the Civil War, where
generals still had troops firing at each other from nearly point-blank
range without grasping that this wasn't necessary because the accuracy
of the weapons had improved by orders of magnitude leading to huge
slaughters, and in Vietnam, where we ended up playing the British to
the VC guerillas.

The shape of the battlefield had changed. In the past, yes, the
producers were able to divide the guild along set lines, pitting TV
drama writers against sitcom writers against feature writers against
unemployed writers against working writers.

But now we had a) more determined leadership and b) every writer in
each of those groups had sat back and watched as the DVD sales of
their work in every arena flew out of stores and made billions for the
studios while they saw nothing. It united the hell out of everybody.
So there ARE no fault lines this time for the producers to exploit.
But they're still running the same playbook as last time. And the
more it doesn't work, the more pissed off they become.

One side-effect of this...after the sales on B5:TLT came in, way
exceeding WB's projections, they initiated talks about what to do
next, including commissioning more DVDs. Looking at the calendar, I
suggested that they might want to hurry the bureaucratic process
because we were going to be in a strike situation soon, so if they
wanted to move, they'd better commision a script fast.

And they said in response, and I quote verbatim, "We don't want to be
pressured in the process because we know there's not going to be a
strike this year, we can handle the Guild."

Face, wood-chipper. Wood-chipper, face."


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

needo said:


> http://laist.com/2007/12/12/mutant_enemy_day.php


Why am I not surprised to see Joss with a bullhorn?


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

smallwonder said:


> Now, now, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that she might have had a schedule conflict. I note that neither Alyson Hanigan, David Boreanaz, Alex Denisof (Alyson's hubby), Charisma Carpenter, or Anthony Head made an appearance either - nor bothered to send refreshments.
> 
> Frankly, aside from Joss, I suspect the others did it for publicity and to stay in Joss' good graces.


From what I understand Boreanaz tries to distance himself as far away from Angel as possible.

Anthony Head I believe lives in England so this really doesn't affect him much.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

pantherman007 said:


> I think most would agree that this is fuzzy accounting that favors the studios and screws those with residuals. But in the ideal setup, where does an appropriate risk/reward arrangement come in with stinkers like the Golden Compass? (Published $180MM budget, privately estimated up to $250MM, and a pathetic box office draw)
> 
> I like the idea of writers (and others) getting a bigger share of what they create, but I have to think the studios are worried about sharing more of the blank ink while being stuck with all of the red.


In theory, that is exactly what royalty payments do -- offload some risk to the creative types, in exchange for a share of the rewards. Royalties and residuals are not a bonus, but part of the base compensation. Studios cannot pay a writer all in cash, because WGA contracts require a minimum residual rate, nor would they want to, because the majority of Hollywood projects die stillborn, lose money, or break even, and studios would be in serious financial trouble having to pay 100% of everything, including failures, up front.

Come contract time, everybody makes their best guess on how well a movie performs, and negotiates accordingly. If a studio thinks they have a blockbuster, they make out best by paying as much as they can up front, and as low a royalty rate as possible. Conversely, if they have a bomb, they offer very little up front, and dangle high royalty rates they suspect they will never have to pay. This is not bad faith on the studios' part, just good business sense. The agents for the writers are doing the same thing on their side -- or at least they should be. The best executives/agents are those that can forecast more accurately than their counterparts, and secure the most favorable terms based on those estimates.

Whenever forecasts are as catastrophically off as they are on Golden Compass, everybody who banked on royalties loses. Pretend for a moment that the total fair market value of that script was $1 million, which has to be paid in a mixture of up-front wages and residuals; if the writers negotiated $50,000 up front, expecting to make the rest in royalties, they lost a lot of money, as they will never see a dime of that expected $950,000. Of course, this is only an opportunity cost for them; while it hurts, their IRS form will still say they made $50k. The studio, however, suffered a real loss. There is no question on a catastrophic bomb that studios risk the most, and lose the most. That is why the studios also deserve to be first in line when there are profits to be had, and that seems fair, at least in principle.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Joe Michael Straczinski said:


> The shape of the battlefield had changed. In the past, yes, the producers were able to divide the guild along set lines, pitting TV drama writers against sitcom writers against feature writers against unemployed writers against working writers.


Yeah, this is a nuclear war. Each side knows that the outcome of this will have a dramatic effect on future negotiations, and neither is likely to give in until they have both launched nukes at each other, leaving remnants on each side whose survival depends on them coming to an agreement.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

pantherman007 said:


> ... I have to think the studios are worried about sharing more of the blank ink while being stuck with all of the red.


:up: :up:

That's why the union should accept a percentage of *profits*. If they feel the accounting is hinky, then (only work for public corporations and) get the SEC involved. If the hinky accounting is legal, then get the laws changed, or accept that our society supports that type of accounting.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

bicker said:


> :up: :up:
> 
> That's why the union should accept a percentage of *profits*. If they feel the accounting is hinky, then (only work for public corporations and) get the SEC involved. If the hinky accounting is legal, then get the laws changed, or accept that our society supports that type of accounting.


So do you leave the door open and just try to find your stuff AFTER it's been stolen? GREAT strategy. What's your address?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Your comment is non-sequitur. The SEC is the lock on the door. The fact is that the accounting that folks are complaining about is legal. They're simply too craven to attack the real issue, so instead misdirect their attacks at the production companies and networks who simply are doing what they're supposed to do.


----------



## anom (Apr 18, 2005)

mrmike said:


> At least she didn't dot the "i" with a heart.
> 
> I don't know why she thinks she's too cool for school with the ME folks. It's not like her career has skyrocketed since she bailed on Buffy.


I never complain when someone sends me donuts.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

bicker said:


> Your comment is non-sequitur. The SEC is the lock on the door. The fact is that the accounting that folks are complaining about is legal. They're simply too craven to attack the real issue, so instead misdirect their attacks at the production companies and networks who simply are doing what they're supposed to do.


According to at least a couple of very large court decisions, the kind of accounting we're talking about here is NOT legal. When you talk about accounting for SEC/IRS purposes and accounting for profit sharing purposes, you're talking about two different things. The accounting that is done for profit sharing/residual payments/etc. is far more detailed than anything required by either the IRS or the SEC. It has to be, because of the number of parties involved and the complexities of the contractual arrangements (e.g. the "big star" may get his percentage from a project's gross, the next level star may get a percentage based on net profits - but "net profits" may be defined by the agreement itself to be calculated either before or after the big star's payment from gross. Certain marketing expenses may be included or excluded. Fees paid to distributors may be included or excluded. Legal fees may be included, excluded, or apportioned. etc. etc. etc.

The complexity is, in some ways, unavoidable, due to the number of parties involved and the variation in the deals they negotiate. But the studios have always played the complexity to their advantage. IIRC, in a couple of the big cases, courts have found studios double and triple counting certain expenses, including them in multiple categories to the detriment of the script writer by undercounting "net" profit.

And that doesn't even address the problem of sweetheart deals, negotiated withing vertically integrated enterprises. Neither the IRS nor the SEC care whether Dick Wolf gives a sweetheart deal to NBC/Universal Productions for Law & Order:SVU in exchange for continuing to produce Law & Order:Criminal Intent; or whether NBC/Universal subsequently gives a sweetheart deal to the NBC network to run SVU in exchange for placing CI on the NBC-owned USA Network; of later cuts a friendly deal with USA for syndication rights to Law & Order. At each of those stages, writers stand to lose out, because the deals are negotiated not based on the fair market value of the scripts, but instead are horse-traded for other benefits to the production company that don't figure in to the writer's residual payments.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> That's why the union should accept a percentage of *profits*. If they feel the accounting is hinky, then (only work for public corporations and) get the SEC involved. If the hinky accounting is legal, then get the laws changed, or accept that our society supports that type of accounting.


Um, the union *does* accept a percentage of profits in most cases. No matter how hinky the accounting may be, it takes a high-echelon star -- a Cruise, a Zemekis, a Hanks -- to demand a percentage of the gross in an individual contract. This would be a bigger deal-breaker than all of the other issues combined; if the WGA (or any union) were to demand percentage of gross as a default, the producers would be laughing too hard to return to the table.


bicker said:


> Your comment is non-sequitur. The SEC is the lock on the door. The fact is that the accounting that folks are complaining about is legal. They're simply too craven to attack the real issue, so instead misdirect their attacks at the production companies and networks who simply are doing what they're supposed to do.


The SEC is not a lock on the door, because they can only intervene after the fact. After great time and expense, Enron was caught and some of its executives punished -- and, after the dust settled, the funds and individuals who lost their savings *still* lost their savings.

At any rate, this is a business negotiation, not a criminal trial. The unions already accept percentages of net, not gross, and changing that is not even on the table. Within that framework, the producers are doing what they are supposed to be doing -- trying to get the maximum labor at the minimum cost. The writers are doing what they are supposed to be doing -- trying to get the maximum compensation for their labor. The "hinky" accounting is not even an official issue -- it only gets dredged up because that history has poisioned the trust between the sides required to conclude a dispute on the other issues quickly.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Fassade said:


> Within that framework, the producers are doing what they are supposed to be doing -- trying to get the maximum labor at the minimum cost. The writers are doing what they are supposed to be doing -- trying to get the maximum compensation for their labor.


And the writers are also doing what they're *not* supposed to be doing---trying to stop others from choosing to continue to work.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

Agreed -- while I am broadly speaking, pro-writer in this dispute, I never claimed they were angels in this matter. In addition to pestering Carson Daly, I think their attempts to bring in animation and reality writers is, at the very least, questionable tactically, and, at the worst, a justification for the studios to turn bad faith accusations right back at them. I had not seen the article about heckling Daly's taping yet though -- thanks for the link.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

Fassade said:


> Whenever forecasts are as catastrophically off as they are on Golden Compass, everybody who banked on royalties loses. Pretend for a moment that the total fair market value of that script was $1 million, which has to be paid in a mixture of up-front wages and residuals; if the writers negotiated $50,000 up front, expecting to make the rest in royalties, they lost a lot of money, as they will never see a dime of that expected $950,000. Of course, this is only an opportunity cost for them; while it hurts, their IRS form will still say they made $50k. The studio, however, suffered a real loss. There is no question on a catastrophic bomb that studios risk the most, and lose the most. That is why the studios also deserve to be first in line when there are profits to be had, and that seems fair, at least in principle.


The studio should be first in line to accept losses since it is the only entity with the power to actually greenlight a project. With power comes responsibility. The studio also controls costs. A writer has no power to prevent a studio from overpaying a star or agreeing to inflated production costs.

On the profit side, the problem is that the studio determines when "profit" occurs. And, suprise, surprise, profit NEVER seems to occur. I don't know if it's urban legend or not but supposedly Titanic has yet to reach profit status, despite over 1 billion in revenue.


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

Bob Coxner said:


> On the profit side, the problem is that the studio determines when "profit" occurs. And, suprise, surprise, profit NEVER seems to occur. I don't know if it's urban legend or not but supposedly Titanic has yet to reach profit status, despite over 1 billion in revenue.


Revenue does not equal profit. I could make a product and have 1 million dollars in revenue but if my costs are 1.5 million I am losing money.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

needo said:


> Revenue does not equal profit. I could make a product and have 1 million dollars in revenue but if my costs are 1.5 million I am losing money.


So it is your opinion that Titanic's cost have been greater that $1 billion? Now is that remotely possible?


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

I have never seen any claims about Titanic losing money, but the Forest Gump case is well documented -- a $661 million grossing movie reporting a $60 million loss. The point is not so much which movies did what, it is this:

Studio and writers|directors|actors together negotiate contracts that includes a mix of up-front wages and back-end participation, e.g. net profit sharing.
The studio, and the studio alone, determines what constitutes a profit, with no input or auditing by the writers, directors, or any third party.
That situation gives the studios not just the ability, but an *enormous* incentive to cook the books. The fact that they can, and that they have been caught in at least a few cases, has led to a universal perception in Hollywood that they do all the time. Fair or not, as a result, none of the unions trust the studios, and that, unfortunately, is a recipe for a long strike.


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

Fleegle said:


> So it is your opinion that Titanic's cost have been greater that $1 billion? Now is that remotely possible?


I was pointing out that revenue does not always equal profit.

I have no idea what it costs to make a movie or a TV show that is not my line of work. But as always I turn to my trust companion Google to show me the way. I found that it cost $200 million to make Titanic.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

AJRitz said:


> According to at least a couple of very large court decisions, the kind of accounting we're talking about here is NOT legal.


That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the legal measures. If they're illegal, then enforcement will provide redress.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> The unions already accept percentages of net, not gross, and changing that is not even on the table.


You must be reading different news reports from me.



Fassade said:


> Within that framework, the producers are doing what they are supposed to be doing -- trying to get the maximum labor at the minimum cost. The writers are doing what they are supposed to be doing -- trying to get the maximum compensation for their labor.


Absolutely.



Fassade said:


> The "hinky" accounting is not even an official issue -- it only gets dredged up because that history has poisioned the trust between the sides required to conclude a dispute on the other issues quickly.


Good point.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> You must be reading different news reports from me.


Sort of -- we are just arguing different contexts. In DVD sales, for example, residuals are indeed calculated against gross, and that is why the rate is so much drastically less than the rate for broadcast runs, to compensate the studios for the manufacturing and distribution costs. I suppose both sides figured it was easier to peg a lesser gross rate than bicker over how a net was calculated. In the theatrical release, compensation tends to be pegged against percentages of net. For TV reruns, at least, the picture is a bit cloudy.

For the crux of this strike, new media, the WGA is arguing for a percentage of "distributors' gross" (however that is calculated, it is not total gross). The studios do not want to do this, because it opens the door for larger payments. The AMPTP is arguing for no residual at all for the first 6 weeks, and then a fixed $250 for a year's worth of use, which the WGA does not want, because that effectively eliminates a huge slice of their income, a trend that will accelerate as IPTV continues to grow. Neither side's initial position is acceptable to the other, and neither seems to trust the other enough to find common ground.

To trot out another cliche, the producers and writers need to put aside the distrust and hang together or else they will hang separately. Entertainment is *leisure time*, and the longer they dicker, the bigger the risk that people will find something else to occupy their time, shrinking the available pie for both sides. Already I am spending far more time on the TiVO boards than I used to (to the chagrin of many  ) and, if this strike continues into the Spring, I might even go outside and work on my long-lost jump shot. I suspect there are millions more like me, and they should see that as a bigger long-term threat than a percentage point on streaming video.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

JMS's war analogy is correct only it is more like a nuclear war where nothing is left. Though the audience will not care. We are the survivors in our underground bunkers laughing at the combatants. Plaster the airwaves with crummy reality shows!!! Go ahead we will finish up our hundreds of hours on our Tivos, download programs we never saw (I didn't watch much of Northern Exposure, boy do I have a treat when I rent those DVDs) rent DVDs, Netflix etc. I also have a library full of unread books. 

I do miss the comedic commentary of Jon Stewart but I can read blogs to get insights on the election. 

I do feel for those innocents who are being hurt. The non-writing employees who work for the studeos. But I hope the big wigs and suits are hit hard.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

bicker said:


> That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the legal measures. If they're illegal, then enforcement will provide redress.


After the fact enforcement is very expensive and time consuming - and totally unnecessary. A percentage of the gross (at a much lower rate) avoids the fighting over what actually constitutes "net" (and which would have to be set at a higher rate to equate to the same actual dollars as a percentage of gross). The only rationale for insisting that writers take a percentage of net is to preserve the ability to monkey with the numbers.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

AJRitz said:


> The only rationale for insisting that writers take a percentage of net is to preserve the ability to monkey with the numbers.


Hardly. It's to ensure that bills are paid before giving away too much of the revenue.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

sieglinde said:


> I do feel for those innocents who are being hurt. The non-writing employees who work for the studeos. But I hope the big wigs and suits are hit hard.


I assume that they'll make almost as much from reality crap as they make from scripted programming, given the costs of the latter. They'll also probably do well to replace American made scripted programming with foreign made scripted programming. That might start a trend that the writers will sorely regret in the end. The studios will be affected by austerity, yes, but the craft workers and others like them are the only ones who will be severely hurt.



AJRitz said:


> After the fact enforcement is very expensive and time consuming


That's life. Both sides of an issue deserve equal consideration. You cannot condemn someone for a transgression they MIGHT commit.



AJRitz said:


> The only rationale for insisting that writers take a percentage of net is to preserve the ability to monkey with the numbers.


No. The rationale for insisting on a percentage of the net is so that the writers don't get their "share of the profits" when there are no profits.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

sieglinde said:


> I do feel for those innocents who are being hurt. The non-writing employees who work for the studeos. But I hope the big wigs and suits are hit hard.


"big wigs and suits"? I think you might be confusing the studio management with the studio owners.

Many, if not all, of the studios are public corporations. That means that they're owned by...well, the public. When the studios lose money, ordinary people lose money. Some will be rich, some will be poor. But I'm sure that very, very few of them wear big wigs...


----------



## TracySMiller (Oct 14, 2002)

Fassade said:


> Studio and writers|directors|actors together negotiate contracts that includes a mix of up-front wages and back-end participation, e.g. net profit sharing.
> The studio, and the studio alone, determines what constitutes a profit, with no input or auditing by the writers, directors, or any third party.
> 
> That situation gives the studios not just the ability, but an *enormous* incentive to cook the books. The fact that they can, and that they have been caught in at least a few cases, has led to a universal perception in Hollywood that they do all the time. Fair or not, as a result, none of the unions trust the studios, and that, unfortunately, is a recipe for a long strike.


That's why they should insist that their compensation be based on AUDITED financial statements. In most of the business world, parties who don't trust one another (banks giving loans, creditors loaning money, investors investing money) require audited financial statements to make sure that generally accepted accounting principles have been followed.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

bicker said:


> I assume that they'll make almost as much from reality crap as they make from scripted programming, given the costs of the latter. They'll also probably do well to replace American made scripted programming with foreign made scripted programming. That might start a trend that the writers will sorely regret in the end. The studios will be affected by austerity, yes, but the craft workers and others like them are the only ones who will be severely hurt.


They probably will make more in the short run with reality programming. The problem is long run.

Seinfeld has made, what?, a billion dollars in reruns and DVD sales? It will be in reruns, making more money, for the next 30 or 40 years.

How much will a studio make from reruns and DVDs of Survivor or Big Brother? A bit more than zero but not much more.

If I'm a studio head with minimal intelligence I should be able to recognize these differences. Sadly, I doubt many do have the minimal IQ and those that do are paid bonuses based on profits from the last quarter, not on what the studio will make from the project in the next 20 years.

Look at the music industry, or what's left of it. They took the short run outlook and raped the customer when CDs came into play. They failed to react to the dangers of P2P or find a way to make good money from it. Everything was a short run attitude and the industry is now all but dead.

If the tv honchos continue to focus only short run (more reality) then they will eventually join the unemployed music industry biggies.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

I know the networks produce a good portion of the shows here, but they have interests beyond that, and at what point do they start exerting some pressure on the Producers to get this resolved?

Ultimately they are the ones funding all these projects and future projects so they have to have some ability to influence it.

I suspect if it were back in the days when they were not producing their own shows, they would be pushing much harder. Now they have their own money to worry about though.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

The whole discussion of how percentages are figured and whether they are based on net or gross is really a minor tangent - even in the contract negotiations themselves. The much more significant (though somewhat related) issue is the writers' demand for percentages to be based on neutral 3rd party Fair Market Evaluations when properties are sold/licensed to related entities. Network-owned production companies have abused this situation on a regular basis, and more and more production is being moved in-house. The whole calculation issue really only came up as another example of how the management side in these negotiations has a history here that makes the writers justifiably suspicious and cautious.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Bob Coxner said:


> They probably will make more in the short run with reality programming. The problem is long run.


Well, in the long-run, they're facing problems strike or no strike.



Bob Coxner said:


> Seinfeld has made, what?, a billion dollars in reruns and DVD sales? It will be in reruns, making more money, for the next 30 or 40 years. How much will a studio make from reruns and DVDs of Survivor or Big Brother? A bit more than zero but not much more.


There's a big question in my mind whether there would ever be another Seinfeld -- again, strike or no strike. I think the golden age of syndicated reruns is history. Regardless, history has shown us that all a strike does is focus the best creativity -- the best ideas -- into the post-strike (and to some extent, when the strike is anticipated, the pre-strike) period.



Bob Coxner said:


> If I'm a studio head with minimal intelligence I should be able to recognize these differences. Sadly, I doubt many do have the minimal IQ


Then you're not thinking clearly. Underestimating these people is pretty common, and pitiful. They have different priorities from you. I believe most of them know far more about this industry than anyone who discussed the industry on discussion forums do. 



Bob Coxner said:


> and those that do are paid bonuses based on profits from the last quarter, not on what the studio will make from the project in the next 20 years.


That's a problem for American industry in general -- it is not specific to showbiz. However, note that this is prompted by Joe Six Pack's lack of patience more than anything else. The focus on quarterly results stems from how the American investor moves their money around, not from anything that production companies do.


----------



## alyssa (Dec 7, 2003)

Bob Coxner said:


> Look at the music industry, or what's left of it. They took the short run outlook and raped the customer when CDs came into play. They failed to react to the dangers of P2P or find a way to make good money from it. Everything was a short run attitude and the industry is now all but dead.
> 
> If the tv honchos continue to focus only short run (more reality) then they will eventually join the unemployed music industry biggies.


When I brought this up a few weeks ago the concensis was that the amount of money to make a show was much more then the money to make a CD and that it wouldn't work for that reason.

In reflection I tend to agree with you tho and it seems to be being backed up by what's happening. JMS recently blogged about writing he is doing strictly for himself and the down right creative youtube clips that are being written. If the strike lasts into the foreseeable future, there will be a outlet on the web which the writers will figure out how to get paid for. The production values won't be up to network standards but the stories will be far better than 'dancing with the stars'.

I read web comics and watch TV because I like the serial nature of the medium. The Web can provide that almost as well as network TV. The only major draw back is having to watch the show on my computer & not the TV.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

alyssa said:


> If the strike lasts into the foreseeable future, there will be a outlet on the web which the writers will figure out how to get paid for. The production values won't be up to network standards but the stories will be far better than 'dancing with the stars'.


And I certainly expect that the studios will start to find non-WGA writers to work for them as well and we'll start to see dramas appear on the air again...

Who knows? Maybe this will finally break the unions' closed shop. I doubt it, but we can dream.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

bicker said:


> I assume that they'll make almost as much from reality crap as they make from scripted programming, given the costs of the latter. They'll also probably do well to replace American made scripted programming with foreign made scripted programming.


Well, I think that would be cool actually. I know there's BBCAmerica, but if we got some of the good British shows on American TV, that'd be cool.. (though I admit I've seen a lot of them on DVD.. e.g. Black Books, Coupling).


----------



## alyssa (Dec 7, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> And I certainly expect that the studios will start to find non-WGA writers to work for them as well and we'll start to see dramas appear on the air again...
> 
> Who knows? Maybe this will finally break the unions' closed shop. I doubt it, but we can dream.


Oh sure the studios could hire scab writers. BTW, the directors have declined to begin their negotiations with the AMPTA.


> Because we want to give the WGA and the AMPTP more time to return to the negotiating table to conclude an agreement, the DGA will not schedule our negotiations to begin until after the New Year, and then, only if an appropriate basis for negotiations can be established.


Lota SAG actors have walked the WGA picket line....Their contract is up in June.

But as you say lets get back to the pre-union days when creative people starved for their art.

http://www.dga.org/news/pr_expand.php3?530


----------



## alyssa (Dec 7, 2003)

Ruth said:


> I'd be a lot more interested in seeing median or mode figures -- that include those who are unemployed but actively seeking.


According to the WGA in 2005;

they had Approx 8,000 members
Approx half of the Guild was working

Of the 4,000 working writers
25% of their members earned less than $38,700.
50% of their members earned less than $106,700.
The top 25% earned more than $248,700
the top 5% earned $685,300

It seems to me if you're a normal writer in the middle of the profession, it's sure be nice to have some residuals coming in when unemployed every other year.

The pdf I got this information does not seem to be up anymore-you'll just have to believe me, I got the information from the WGA web site.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

So how many of those 4,000 working writers get their only wage from writing? 

And just because only 50% of WGA union members are working as writers doesn't mean that the "normal" writer is unemployed every other year! Presumably, the "good" or "popular" writers are employed consistently and the less good or less popular writers are perennially unemployed (as writers, at least).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

And that's really the problem with the unions: They push for retention of jobs, even when those people aren't needed. The general public wants (1) lower prices and (2) better return on their investments. So business thoughtfully works to satisfy what the general public wants by seeking efficiencies, economies of scale, productivity improvements, reductions in cost, etc. Unions obstruct that process, working to protect their own financial interests at the expense of consumers and investors.


----------



## alyssa (Dec 7, 2003)

you guys are thinking about creative jobs like you think about factory worker jobs. 

50&#37; of the writers don't come up with all the ideas. 100% of the writers come up with ideas. If we lose 50% of the writers the pool of decent ideas will drop by 50%.

Joss Whedon of Buffy fame is a great writer, he hasn't sold a major script in the past year. Does that mean he should drop out of the union & get another job? BTW all he's ever done is written for a living so the other job would be on the low end of the pay scale.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

alyssa said:


> If we lose 50% of the writers the pool of decent ideas will drop by 50%.


Hardly. You're the one making the writers seem interchangeable---there's a difference between a good writer and a bad writer. The better the writer, the better the likelihood that they'll come up with a good idea.


alyssa said:


> BTW all [Joss Whedon]'s ever done is written for a living so the other job would be on the low end of the pay scale.


Not at all. He was also a showrunner/exec producer for three different series.

Should he drop out of the union? That's up to him (though I doubt he will since he seems very pro-WGA). But if he does decide to drop out, he should still be allowed to get writing jobs... And you don't need to drop out of the union to get another job. Are you claiming that the 50% of WGA members without writing jobs are without income of any kind?


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

bicker said:


> There's a big question in my mind whether there would ever be another Seinfeld -- again, strike or no strike. I think the golden age of syndicated reruns is history. Regardless, history has shown us that all a strike does is focus the best creativity -- the best ideas -- into the post-strike (and to some extent, when the strike is anticipated, the pre-strike) period.


Given the fragmentation of entertainment sources there probably won't be another Seinfeld but there are certainly a fair number of mini-Seinfelds still raking in tons of cash.

Family Guy is still on the air and doing extremely well in DVD sales and reruns. The Office ditto. The Simpsons. Arrested Development (#6 in DVD sales, Amazon), Lost, 24, BSG, etc. None of these will make Seinfeld numbers but they can still provide a few hundred million dollars to someone. All of the ones I listed are in the top 50 in Amazon sales. Even minor tv shows, like The King of Queens, continue to do well in reruns and relatively well in DVD sales. TKOQ first season is #1535 on Amazon.

In contrast, the first season of Survivor is #5609 in sales on Amazon. That barely covers the cost of DVD production. The third season of Big Brother is #26614. It must have been bought only by the cast itself. The Amazing Race, first season, is #5403.

These reality shows were highly rated when first shown but clearly they have little or no value beyond the first airing. If the networks think they will win the strike by going all reality then they are cutting their throats in the long run. Not only will they be ending a lucrative revenue stream but they will be driving their customers to find other sources of fresh entertainment. Those customers may not come back.


----------



## Rosincrans (May 4, 2006)

Amnesia said:


> Hardly. You're the one making the writers seem interchangeable---there's a difference between a good writer and a bad writer. The better the writer, the better the likelihood that they'll come up with a good idea.


You're assuming that good writers can just come out of the gate making good money. Joss Whedon wrote 4 scripts for Roseanne in 1989. 1 episode of Parenthood in 1990 and Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie came out in 1992. His next movie was Toy Story in 1995. (His first real hit, and probably more credit was given to Pixar than to him) He didn't get steady work until the Buffy series in 1997. If it wasn't for union guaranteed minimums and requirements for TV shows to hire outside talent, Joss probably would've never lasted long enough to make it as a writer. Almost every successful writer depended on the WGA when they were starting out. That's why even the ones making millions of dollars per script are fighting for the guaranteed minimums.


----------



## jhausmann (Aug 21, 2002)

I think both unions are playing a very dangerous game. The longer the strike, the more potential viewers will depart. Advertising revenue is based upon viewers. Less viewers, less revenue. Means new shows will get pitched for less. Likely means current shows will have a smaller increase range Also affected are the popular shows. If a network doesn't make money on a show, networks tend to drop them. It is doubtful shows like Lost, Deperate Hosewives, 24 hours will remain viable with a large loss of viewers.


It took a long while for Baseball to recover from it's protracted strike, if the TV strike goes on as long, I expect the writers will learn a very hard lesson. And sadly, so will a lot of other people who work in the industry...


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

That is the thing TV producers and the big networks have not learned. Over the last 20 years, any chance they have given their viewership to erode, has happened. They too often give people opportunities to find other channels to watch, use the internet or do other things.

The only thing that has kept the networks growing is their excellent ability to squeeze more money from advertisers for smaller and smaller audiences. At some point that will end.

Personally I would hope the strike would go on so long that we could finally break ourselves away from this out-dated model of a fall tv season. Instead you have programming on year around and different programs have different lengths. This has been happening slowly, but the foundation of rolling out all your shows at the same time is still their, and will take something big to shake it up.

By the way I know I saw Joss direct at least one episode of The Office.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

alyssa said:


> 50% of the writers don't come up with all the ideas. 100% of the writers come up with ideas. If we lose 50% of the writers the pool of decent ideas will drop by 50%.


Writers, like any discipline, have its stars and its drones. The writers who aren't writing much aren't writing much because they're not very good. I bet the percentage of writers that come up with truly remarkable ideas is closer to 20%.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> And that's really the problem with the unions: They push for retention of jobs, even when those people aren't needed. The general public wants (1) lower prices and (2) better return on their investments.


Insofar as unions do this, then agreed, they can run counter to the public interest. This logic does not extend to residuals, because (1) Writers are not provided with jobs when they are not needed. Writers are not farmers being paid not to grow crops for a year, nor are they factory workers collecting paychecks while the machinery lies idle and the employer suffers. Their fortunes are inextricably linked with that of their studio, because, after the original contract payment, everything else is pay-for-program-performance. If the Seinfeld rerun/DVD machinery takes in $5 million this year, the writers get a slice of that $5 million for their role in the creation of that machinery. If the Caroline in the City rerun/DVD machinery takes in zero, the writers also take in zero. There is no unneeded job at the studios expense, merely the fulfillment of contract terms the writer and studio negotiated beforehand, with the studio's -- and their investors -- full knowledge.


----------



## alyssa (Dec 7, 2003)

bicker said:


> Writers, like any discipline, have its stars and its drones. The writers who aren't writing much aren't writing much because they're not very good. I bet the percentage of writers that come up with truly remarkable ideas is closer to 20%.


IF I accept your figures then the remaining 80% of the writers who are not "truly good' won't get paid. I don't have a problem with that. If they don't write something they shouldn't get paid. And what's even more if they do write a show and it's not re-aired/streamed/dvd'ed they shouldn't get residuals.

The argument isn't about what WGA members who don't write get paid, it's about what the writers who work get paid. 
Just so we have some perspective here, Les Moonves CBS CEO's new package is worth $30 million per year.


> CBS, they are compensating one man -- in one year -- twenty-one times what it would cost CBS to compensate the entire union everything in its proposal over three years.


http://unitedhollywood.blogspot.com/2007/12/we-extend-our-condolences-to-les.html


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

alyssa said:


> Just so we have some perspective here, Les Moonves CBS CEO's new package is worth $30 million per year.


That's what a market economy does. If CBS didn't pay him $30M a year, he'd find another company that would be willing to. There are fewer top CEOs than there are companies who want them. That drives up the salary they are able to command...

...and that's one of my biggest issues with unions. Unions subvert the free market and prevent people from being paid on merit---it many cases, people are paid based on seniority instead. (Note: I am not saying this is how things work with the WGA).

Without unions, individual writers would negotiate their own contracts with production companies (just like most Americans). If the offer were too low, then the writer would choose another project or another line of work. If the production companies were unable to find individual writers at the prices (or contracts) that they were willing to pay, then they'd be forced to raise their offer until they find someone who they'd willing to hire at a price they're willing to pay (or they decide to abandon the project). Again, this is the way things generally work in non-union jobs.

If a company values a particular writer, they'd offer him a good package. If they don't, they wouldn't...


----------



## Fl_Gulfer (May 27, 2005)

They all need to be fired, Just look at the crap thats on TV.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

alyssa said:


> Just so we have some perspective here, Les Moonves CBS CEO's new package is worth $30 million per year.


CEO envy isn't anything new. It's also not relevant.


----------



## The Flush (Aug 3, 2005)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071216/ap_en_tv/hollywood_labor;_ylt=AjVNAp1i7FuD4K6HIhaT.6qs0NUE



> Writers propose independent negotiations
> 
> By JOHN ROGERS, Associated Press Writer Sun Dec 16, 4:13 AM ET
> 
> LOS ANGELES (AP)  Faced with the indefinite suspension of negotiations, the union representing striking Hollywood writers told its members Saturday it would try to deal directly with Hollywood studios and production companies, bypassing the umbrella organization that has been representing them.


----------



## alyssa (Dec 7, 2003)

bicker said:


> CEO envy isn't anything new. It's also not relevant.


What nonworking WGA members get paid(or not paid) is not relevant either but it is being discussed. 
The figure goes to the financial stability of a member of the AMPTA-


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2007/12/16/letterman-the-key-to-ending-wga-strike/

This is pretty damn interesting. Especially if it works.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

needo said:


> http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2007/12/16/letterman-the-key-to-ending-wga-strike/
> 
> This is pretty damn interesting. Especially if it works.


I've wondered all along why this doesn't happen; I hope it does.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> CEO envy isn't anything new. It's also not relevant.


Actually it IS rather new. CEOs didn't use to get paid these ridiculous amounts of money just for being CEOs, that only started happening fairly recently, when they realized that their buddies on the boards could get away with it, thanks to their chummy relationships with major stockholders. That's why it was so rewarding to see stockholder's anger over Home Depots CEOs compensation, and such a pleasure to see him resign because of it... (suffering to the tune of a few hundred million dollars in severance).


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

dswallow said:


> I've wondered all along why this doesn't happen; I hope it does.


So do I.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

dswallow said:


> I've wondered all along why this doesn't happen; I hope it does.


I hope so as well, but, in the short term, this might be unique. Worldwide Pants (Letterman's company) apparently has asked for an individual waiver from the WGA from the outset, long before the WGA tried this tactic of dealing with individual production entities. That, combined with the rare condition that Worldwide Pants' owner/driving force (Letterman) has been a WGA member for decades, would make this outcome a natural one for this single production company.

Perhaps in response, on the front page of amptp.org today is a show-of-unity statement among 8 big production players, signed by the charimen/CEOs of Sony, Disney, NBC/Universal, Fox, Paramount, Warner Bros., CBS, and MGM. Since it looks like a print ad, it will probably be in the LA Times or trade journals this week. I think it is safe to say that these 8 large shops will not willingly negotiate separately with the WGA anytime soon, and it will be fascinating to see how many, if any, of the 300-odd other small production houses will break from these 8 and negotiate separately should this continue much longer.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

dswallow said:


> I've wondered all along why this doesn't happen; I hope it does.


It is interesting that this strike might actually dissolve the producers bargaining group.

I am not sure if that was a predictable outcome when this started.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

alyssa said:


> What nonworking WGA members get paid(or not paid) is not relevant either ....


Your mistaken: Folks are making that relevant by using it as justification for some of the unreasonably high minimums.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MickeS said:


> Actually it IS rather new.


We can agree to disagree about whether or not it is new, but it is still irrelevant regardless. How much the CEO makes has nothing to do with the strike or the union, while how much the writers make IS relevant.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> We can agree to disagree about whether or not it is new, but it is still irrelevant regardless. How much the CEO makes has nothing to do with the strike or the union, while how much the writers make IS relevant.


That I agree with.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

MickeS said:


> That I agree with.


I actually DON'T agree. When the CEOs are claiming poverty as an excuse not to pay writers a bigger share of the profits, when ONE of their salaries would probably pay ALL the writers' extra income over the life of the contract, then their hypocrisy becomes relevant.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> When the CEOs are claiming poverty as an excuse not to pay writers a bigger share of the profits, when ONE of their salaries would probably pay ALL the writers' extra income over the life of the contract, then their hypocrisy becomes relevant.


The CEOs don't pay the writers. The studios pay the writers. The CEOs aren't claiming personal poverty, which is the only way in which their salaries would be relevant.

Big movie stars also make multi-million dollar salaries. If you're going to talk about reducing someone's salary to pay the writers, why not halve the salaries of Denzel Washington or Tom Hanks? Simple: They get paid due to market demand. Their are few stars and lots of movies that want to have them play a part. That's why they can command a high salary. Same with CEOs.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> The CEOs don't pay the writers. The studios pay the writers. The CEOs aren't claiming personal poverty, which is the only way in which their salaries would be relevant.
> 
> Big movie stars also make multi-million dollar salaries. If you're going to talk about reducing someone's salary to pay the writers, why not halve the salaries of Denzel Washington or Tom Hanks? Simple: They get paid due to market demand. Their are few stars and lots of movies that want to have them play a part. That's why they can command a high salary. Same with CEOs.


But the studios would be in a better position to pay a slightly higher residual to the writers if the CEO weren't taking such a large chunk of the profits. The CEO job doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Of course the A-List stars get paid a lot, their names have a direct effect on the success of a project. But nobody is watching CBS because of Les Moonves. He may do stuff behind the scenes, but he doesn't have a direct effect on the viewership of the network.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> But the studios would be in a better position to pay a slightly higher residual to the writers if the CEO weren't taking such a large chunk of the profits. The CEO job doesn't exist in a vacuum.
> 
> Of course the A-List stars get paid a lot, their names have a direct effect on the success of a project. But nobody is watching CBS because of Les Moonves. He may do stuff behind the scenes, but he doesn't have a direct effect on the viewership of the network.


He decides what airs on the network and what doesn't. Of course they're watching (or not watching) because of him. Not because of his name, no, but because of him and how he does his job.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Does matter to me who the good guys or the devils are in this strike. Doesn't matter to me who wins or who loses in this strike. The only thing I care about is how much my cable bill is going to go up because that's the only 100&#37; definite thing that's going to happen when the strike is resolved.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

aindik said:


> He decides what airs on the network and what doesn't. Of course they're watching (or not watching) because of him. Not because of his name, no, but because of him and how he does his job.


Sure, people are watching CBS and you could say that's because of him. But people don't have a choice of which CBS executive's programming to watch. If they like the shows on CBS, Moonie gets credit for it, regardless of whether he had anything to do with it.

But is he doing something unique that any other exec couldn't do? I seriously doubt that. In fact, considering that most of what is shown on CBS is generic crap, I'd say that other execs could do a much better job.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> Sure, people are watching CBS and you could say that's because of him. But people don't have a choice of which CBS executive's programming to watch.


The CEOs job is not to program the schedule. It's to run the company. His goal is long-term shareholder value.

You could argue that others could do the job, but anyone with the skillset necessary to run a $18B+ company is likely to want the same kind of compensation package.


----------



## alyssa (Dec 7, 2003)

bicker said:


> Your mistaken: Folks are making that relevant by using it as justification for some of the unreasonably high minimums.


Are you making a judgment on what constitutes a "unreasonably high minimum"? If so I would suggest that there is a *great* deal of difference between a living wage in Burlington MA vs. Hollywood, CA.
Or are you suggesting that the established system of residual payments should be trashed?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I actually DON'T agree. When the CEOs are claiming poverty as an excuse not to pay writers a bigger share of the profits, when ONE of their salaries would probably pay ALL the writers' extra income over the life of the contract, then their hypocrisy becomes relevant.


Not one CEO claims to be poor to justify their positions in this strike. I suspect you're employing a bit of intellectual dishonesty by transferring the company position of lack of profitability and presenting it in your message as the CEO claiming poverty. If so, shame on you. :down:


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> But the studios would be in a better position to pay a slightly higher residual to the writers if the CEO weren't taking such a large chunk of the profits.


Yet, that's simply not significant enough to be relevant. The CEOs simply don't make enough money for their salaries to matter.



DevdogAZ said:


> Of course the A-List stars get paid a lot, their names have a direct effect on the success of a project.


Just like a top-shelf CEO has a direct effect on the success of a company. For example, just watch a company's ability to inexpensively acquire capital for investment plummet when they switch from a well-respected CEO to Joe Nobody. In many ways, having a top-shelf CEO is exceedingly important.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

alyssa said:


> Are you making a judgment on what constitutes a "unreasonably high minimum"? If so I would suggest that there is a *great* deal of difference between a living wage in [the Boston metro area] vs. [the Los Angeles metro area].


_Fixed it for you._

And: You'd be mistaken.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

needo said:


> http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2007/12/16/letterman-the-key-to-ending-wga-strike/
> 
> This is pretty damn interesting. Especially if it works.


I guess now Jay and Conan are returning but without the writers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22285072/



> "Both Jay and Conan have supported their writers during the first two months of this WGA (Writers Guild of America) strike and will continue to support them," said Rick Ludwin, executive vice president, late night and primetime series for NBC. "However, there are hundreds of people who will be able to return to work as a result of Jays and Conans decision."


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

ElJay said:


> I guess now Jay and Conan are returning but without the writers.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22285072/


So... Who's going to write their material?


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> Yet, that's simply not significant enough to be relevant. The CEOs simply don't make enough money for their salaries to matter.


Read the post  again, orignally cited by Alyssa:


> CBS, they are compensating one man -- in one year -- twenty-one times what it would cost CBS to compensate the entire union everything in its proposal over three years.


Is the CEO's salary enough to cause a company to careen into the abyss? Of course not. But to insinuate that the CEO's guaranteed salary is somehow insignificant in scale compared to the incentive-driven WGA compensation flies in the face of the facts.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Fassade said:


> But to insinuate that the CEO's guaranteed salary is somehow insignificant in scale compared to the incentive-driven WGA compensation flies in the face of the facts.


But why single out the CEO? You could also take David Letterman's salary and say the same thing...


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> But why single out the CEO? You could also take David Letterman's salary and say the same thing...


Yup, you could, but I would not; I only peeped up on the Les Moonves bit because of the statistical mismatch. I, for one, do not begrudge Les Moonves or David Letterman anything they can negotiate. I am curious, though, why specifically some feel the writers demands are "unreasonable" when they try to exercise the same rights, and on a far smaller scale.


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

Fleegle said:


> So... Who's going to write their material?


No one. They'll just be winging it, ad libbing the parts in between interviews.


----------



## alyssa (Dec 7, 2003)

bicker said:


> _Fixed it for you._
> 
> And: You'd be mistaken.


About what?

That it's more expensive to live in LA than the outskirts of Boston? I think the median home prices are a good indicator of the cost of living difference.
According to realtor.org the difference of a single family home in 2006 between the greater Boston area & the greater LA area is $182,600. It's interesting to me that you don't see this amount of money as a real difference.
http://www.realtor.org/Research.nsf/files/MSAPRICESF.pdf/$FILE/MSAPRICESF.pdf

But perhaps your saying that I'm mistaken about suggesting you're making a judgment call on how much money someone should make for a given job?


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

ElJay said:


> I guess now Jay and Conan are returning but without the writers.
> [/url]


Which is kind of ironic given most of today's discussion, because that's exactly what Letterman did in the '88 strike..

"Network time killers" and I believe his use of Stump the Band (with Carson's permission) started during that time during the writer-less period.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

FilmCritic3000 said:


> No one. They'll just be winging it, ad libbing the parts in between interviews.


Who will they be interviewing? I'll be surprised to see any major stars crossing the picket line.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Bob Coxner said:


> Who will they be interviewing? I'll be surprised to see any major stars crossing the picket line.


Don't be. Many actors and actresses have a contractual obligation to promote their movies---and some have financial stakes in the pictures as well.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

Bob Coxner said:


> Who will they be interviewing? I'll be surprised to see any major stars crossing the picket line.


Since the Screen Actors Guild has expressed solidarity with the WGA (Your Fight is Our Fight ), presumably actors will appear less frequently, though, as Amnesia points out, some will surely still appear.

The biggest question is, will the ratings notice? Will a WGA-written Letterman begin to chip away at a "scab-written" Leno's lead? I would guess that, if enough A-list stars stay away, and Leno cannot (or will not) do popular bits like monologues and headlines, the show _quality_ might eventually suffer, but that does not mean the audience will stay away. Both sides will be watching that very closely in January.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

link


> If the jokes are particularly bad at the Golden Globes on Jan. 13, blame the ongoing writers' strike


So, should we blame the WGA for all the previous suckage at award shows..?


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

latrobe7 said:


> linkSo, should we blame the WGA for all the previous suckage at award shows..?


No, they'll suck regardless. The only award shows worth watching are the Tony's and music awards cause they have good live acts. The emmys, oscars and the retarded golden globes (some tiny number of foreign journalist get together, make a list and call it an award???) will always suck since they spend 3-5 hours passing out 14 awards with mindless banter to fill the gaps.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> No, they'll suck regardless. The only award shows worth watching are the Tony's and music awards cause they have good live acts. The emmys, oscars and the retarded golden globes (some tiny number of foreign journalist get together, make a list and call it an award???) will always suck since they spend 3-5 hours passing out 14 awards with mindless banter to fill the gaps.


Then again, if it reduces the length of these shows to a half hour, perhaps we should all root for the strike to last just a wee bit longer...


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> No, they'll suck regardless. The only award shows worth watching are the Tony's and music awards cause they have good live acts. The emmys, oscars and the retarded golden globes (some tiny number of foreign journalist get together, make a list and call it an award???) will always suck since they spend 3-5 hours passing out 14 awards with mindless banter to fill the gaps.


Aren't the acts the main reason most of those music awards shows (as well as the Teen Choice and Kids Choice Awards) exist? Or is there another reason there seem to be twenty different sets of country music awards?

As for the Golden Globes, they may be losing some of their luster now that the Academy that runs the Oscars requires all nominating ballots be sent in the day before the Golden Globes are awarded (to make sure nobody can say that the GGs influenced the Oscar nominations). How many years were they on cable - and that was after years of not being televised at all, after the Pia Zadora indicent?

Meanwhile, with any luck, the lack of writers will mean they cut back on the filler and the Oscars actually finish in three hours. Then again, what will probably really happen is, every winner will think that since there are no writers, that gives them more time to make their acceptance speech.

-- Don


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

I read today that the WGA refused to give the Golden Globes a waiver for their show.

The Oscars also did not get a waiver, but they are saying they did not request one yet either.

There is still some question if actors and actresses will even show up to this events as to show their support by staying away.

This rejection of the Golden Globes makes me wonder if there is any real chance of a waiver for the talk shows.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> No, they'll suck regardless. The only award shows worth watching are the Tony's and music awards cause they have good live acts. The emmys, oscars and the retarded golden globes (some tiny number of foreign journalist get together, make a list and call it an award???) will always suck since they spend 3-5 hours passing out 14 awards with mindless banter to fill the gaps.


Interesting. I really enjoy watching the Emmys, Oscars and Golden Globes for the jokes and seeing the celebs. The GG is often the best because they're all sitting there drinking and it's much more of a party atmosphere. I usually FF through the acceptance speeches and musical acts. I would never even consider watching the Tonys or any music awards because they're full of the things I hate about award shows.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

What sticks out for me about the award show story, is the impression that the WGA issued the statement about the Oscars and the Golden Globes after the news about the late night guys going back to work:


> The WGA's action came hours after two of U.S. TV's biggest late-night stars, Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien, said they would resume taping their NBC shows on January 2, even if it means crossing picket lines, after two months off the air in support of the strike.


link

I mean, is that a threat? Who is that announcement for? Is that supposed to scare producers? Are we, the viewing public, supposed to be upset that there will be no one to write awful production numbers and terrible one-liners for the award shows? I'm surprised the WGA would highlight the fact that all those awful skits and jokes are written by professionals. It kind of undercuts the sympathy vote, IMO!


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Has NBC announced yet whether its late night shows will be a) written by non-union writers and the hosts, or b) not written at all? Do Leno and Conan lose WGA membership for violating the strike?



latrobe7 said:


> I mean, is that a threat? Who is that announcement for? Is that supposed to scare producers? Are we, the viewing public, supposed to be upset that there will be no one to write awful production numbers and terrible one-liners for the award shows? I'm surprised the WGA would highlight the fact that all those awful skits and jokes are written by professionals. It kind of undercuts the sympathy vote, IMO!


Do the Golden Globes give out awards for writing?


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

The Leno and Conan stuff surprises me. They claim that they are still supporting the writers, but they are going to cross the picket lines and start their shows back up. To me, it doesn't matter if they are going to go "unscripted" or not--it's still an act of defiance against the union.

I'm not sure if Leno is a member of the WGA, but I know Conan is--and something tells me this isn't going to bode well for that union membership.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

doom1701 said:


> The Leno and Conan stuff surprises me. They claim that they are still supporting the writers, but they are going to cross the picket lines and start their shows back up. To me, it doesn't matter if they are going to go "unscripted" or not--it's still an act of defiance against the union.


The union has always given permission to its members who also have other jobs on shows (hyphenates, they call them, writer-producer, writer-director, writer-host) to do their other jobs as long as they don't write (or read/use material written by non-union writers??). Jimmy Kimmel was allowed to host the American Music Awards, so long as he didn't write anything beforehand. I don't think he's in trouble with the union for that. I think Carlton Cuse is working on Lost, but not writing.



doom1701 said:


> I'm not sure if Leno is a member of the WGA, but I know Conan is--and something tells me this isn't going to bode well for that union membership.


Did the prior collective bargaining agreement between the union and the studios say that all credited writers on The Tonight Show must be members of the union? Is Jay Leno credited as a writer on the Tonight Show? If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then he has to be a member of the union.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

doom1701 said:


> To me, it doesn't matter if they are going to go "unscripted" or not--it's still an act of defiance against the union.


Perhaps they'd agree to stay off the air if the WGA would foot the bill for paying the non-writing staff. Right now, the strike is estimated to be personally costing Leno $250K/week and Conan $150K/week.

Their choice is to let the non-writing staff get laid off, continue to foot the bill or go back to work. I don't see how any reasonable person could blame them for their decision.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

doom1701 said:


> The Leno and Conan stuff surprises me. They claim that they are still supporting the writers, but they are going to cross the picket lines and start their shows back up. To me, it doesn't matter if they are going to go "unscripted" or not--it's still an act of defiance against the union.


I'm guessing they have to choose, and no matter what they choose, it will piss off some. If they don't go back to work, many of the non-writing staff will probably suffer, if they do go back to work, they might feel that they are betraying the writers.
Personally, I think they should go back to work, in order to help the rest of the staff, if possible.


----------



## TivoZorro (Jul 16, 2000)

TV Guide is reporting that if the strike goes well into 2008 the following will happen:

1. No Fall Season - no new pilots - no new season launch. And once that cycle is broken there will be a more year-round TV season

2. More Reality Shows

3. If sitcoms and dramas can't be made in the USA, the networks could start looking outside the country for shows. Apparently CBS has already discussed a production partnership with CTV (Canada).


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

They also interview authors and politicians who would not be part of any of the strike. Would singing artists be part of this strike? I mean folks who only make albums who don't also appear in movies or TV shows.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

doom1701 said:


> The Leno and Conan stuff surprises me. They claim that they are still supporting the writers, but they are going to cross the picket lines and start their shows back up. To me, it doesn't matter if they are going to go "unscripted" or not--it's still an act of defiance against the union.


Or a show of support for the hundreds of non WGA members on their staffs? I'm just sayin.... Leno paid everyone for months, how long does he need to do that in order to be considered supportive of the WGA?

I do think the WGA has a point behind what they are doing, but the longer the strikes goes the more collatoral damage begins to pile up.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Or a show of support for the hundreds of non WGA members on their staffs? I'm just sayin.... Leno paid everyone for months, how long does he need to do that in order to be considered supportive of the WGA?


Months? It started on November 5, 2007. It's December 18, 2007 today. Leno didn't even start paying his non-writing staffs until around December 2, 2007... that's because they didn't shut down production until November 30, 2007... so Leno's been paying the non-writing staff for a whopping 16 days so far -- 12 if you want to count just work days.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

TivoZorro said:


> TV Guide is reporting that if the strike goes well into 2008 the following will happen:
> 
> 1. No Fall Season - no new pilots - no new season launch. And once that cycle is broken there will be a more year-round TV season
> 
> ...


Is that supposed to be a list of negatives or positives?


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Or a show of support for the hundreds of non WGA members on their staffs? I'm just sayin.... Leno paid everyone for months, how long does he need to do that in order to be considered supportive of the WGA?
> 
> I do think the WGA has a point behind what they are doing, but the longer the strikes goes the more collatoral damage begins to pile up.


I guess this one of those examples of "unprecedented support" the writers keep claiming. What about all the people the writers are hurting by walking off the job? How about us as the viewing public? Do they really think taking something away from us is going to pull us over to their way of thinking? It's done just the opposite. I think residuals are ridiculous. I hope they get done away with entirely. I also hope this strike fails miserably for the writers. Maybe they will think twice before they walk away next time.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

You mean the people the producer's are hurting by failing to pay the writer's fairly.

If the producer's said that the next contract they would cut the writer's pay 50&#37;, would the writer's be wrong for striking? What about 75%? What about 90%?

I guess when producer's who are making tons of money try to cut your pay you should just take it.

-smak-


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

smak said:


> If the producer's said that the next contract they would cut the writer's pay 50%, would the writer's be wrong for striking? What about 75%? What about 90%?
> 
> -


Yes. It would be wrong to walk off the job and then try to take everyone else with you. In any other world other than theirs that would be illegal. Why punish all of us because they can't negotiate a deal they like at work? That's really all it comes down to for me. Settle your differences amongst yourselves and don't drag me (and the rest of the viewing public) into your fight as a way to put pressure on YOUR bosses to pay you more. It's an unfair advantage that nobody should have and in fact almost nobody does. Most of us have to fight our own battles.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

bareyb said:


> Yes. It would be wrong to walk off the job and then try to take everyone else with you. In any other world other than theirs that would be illegal. Why punish all of us because they can't negotiate a deal they like at work? That's really all it comes down to for me. Settle your differences amongst yourselves and don't drag me (and the rest of the viewing public) into your fight as a way to put pressure on YOUR bosses to pay you more. It's an unfair advantage that nobody should have and in fact almost nobody does. Most of us have to fight our own battles.


If automobile workers strike, and teamsters won't cross picket lines in solidarity you can't get a new car (and a lot of people start losing money). If IATSE strikes, and the other unions support them you can't go to Broadway shows (and a lot of people start losing money). If TV writers strike and SAG supports them, there are no new TV shows (and a lot of people start losing money). What exactly is the difference (or is all collective bargaining bad)?


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

I see, so if the local grocery store chain tells all their employees that their salaries will be cut by 75&#37; starting tomorrow, they have to stay on the job and just accept the 75%cut because it might inconvenience people who want to buy their cereal and pepsi?

The problem is, the grocery chain is being unreasonable, and they are the ones at fault for anybody being inconvenience.

Same with the writers. The producer's are trying to make money off internet showings without paying anybody. Every other showing of a TV show they make money, and the writers and actors make money. But internet showings they don't want anybody else to make money.

That is highly unreasonable, and therefore they are the ones at fault for us being "inconvenienced" because we can't watch a new TV show.

-smak-


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

dswallow said:


> Leno didn't even start paying his non-writing staffs until around December 2, 2007... that's because they didn't shut down production until November 30, 2007... so Leno's been paying the non-writing staff for a whopping 16 days so far


And by the time shows resume on 2 January, he will have paid an estimated $1M out of his own pocket. How does that make sense?



smak said:


> You mean the people the producer's are hurting by failing to pay the writer's fairly.


Don't even think for a minute that the laid-off staff workers are the studios' fault. The WGA are the ones who called for the strike. If not for the union, then individual writers could decide for themselves whether or not they wanted to accept the offered deal or find other employment. The sudden departure of all writers, leading to the shuttering of studios, is solely the responsibility of the WGA.



smak said:


> I guess when producer's who are making tons of money try to cut your pay you should just take it.



What do the producers' salaries have to do with anything?
I'm pretty sure that no one is talking about cutting pay---the issue is how much to raise it (and by what measures).


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

And to take your grocery store analogy, perhaps some people would accept a lower salary and continue working there. Perhaps the store would find other people currently out of a job who would be interested in working at the store.

Neither situation is possible with the closed shop policies of the WGA.


----------



## Freshman JS (Nov 8, 2002)

mrmike said:


> If automobile workers strike, and teamsters won't cross picket lines in solidarity you can't get a new car (and a lot of people start losing money). If IATSE strikes, and the other unions support them you can't go to Broadway shows (and a lot of people start losing money). If TV writers strike and SAG supports them, there are no new TV shows (and a lot of people start losing money). What exactly is the difference (or is all collective bargaining bad)?


all of those examples are very bad. the only good case would be for worker safety.


----------



## Freshman JS (Nov 8, 2002)

smak said:


> I see, so if the local grocery store chain tells all their employees that their salaries will be cut by 75% starting tomorrow, they have to stay on the job and just accept the 75%cut because it might inconvenience people who want to buy their cereal and pepsi?
> 
> The problem is, the grocery chain is being unreasonable, and they are the ones at fault for anybody being inconvenience.
> 
> ...


absolutely! the grocery store is free to cut pay 75% in a nonunion environment. if workers are not willing to work for that wage they will quit. If enough of them quit, the owners of the store will have a problem. They can't stay open. They will need to pay more to hire some people. Wages will reach a market clearing price. That's how the economy works in most industries. Unions are an artificial mechanism for creating inflated wages. This only hurts everyone in the long run. (see GM, Ford, Crysler)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> I'm pretty sure that no one is talking about cutting pay---the issue is how much to raise it (and by what measures).


Actually, they _are_ talking about effectively cutting pay.

The current pay structure is money upfront plus residuals for reruns and a laughably small residual for video (the result of the studios having their way back in the 80s). As DVDs have begun to replace reruns, writer pay has gone down. Now, the internet is starting to replace reruns further, and the studios are trying for a rerun (cough) of the 80s video residuals negotiations. This would result in still greater cuts in writers' overall pay.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

bareyb said:


> How about us as the viewing public? Do they really think taking something away from us is going to pull us over to their way of thinking? It's done just the opposite. I think residuals are ridiculous. I hope they get done away with entirely. I also hope this strike fails miserably for the writers. Maybe they will think twice before they walk away next time.


So basically you think the writers should bend over and take it, because you want to watch shows on TV? Give us a break.  The entertainment industry is full of residuals and it makes sense given how unpredictable the employment can be. I don't see why DVD or internet distribution should be a free stream of dividends for producers and stockholders while the creative force that made it possible get little or nothing from the reuse of their (evidently valuable) material.


----------



## Freshman JS (Nov 8, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Actually, they _are_ talking about effectively cutting pay.
> 
> The current pay structure is money upfront plus residuals for reruns and a laughably small residual for video (the result of the studios having their way back in the 80s). As DVDs have begun to replace reruns, writer pay has gone down. Now, the internet is starting to replace reruns further, and the studios are trying for a rerun (cough) of the 80s video residuals negotiations. This would result in still greater cuts in writers' overall pay.


If the current structure includes "laughably small residuals," then these writers are incredibly stupid for staying in their jobs. They should have left and gotten better jobs and more money!!! Obviously, if the studios have underpaid them, then someone must be willing to pay them more. Otherwise, the suggestion that they are underpaid is absurd.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> And by the time shows resume on 2 January, he will have paid an estimated $1M out of his own pocket. How does that make sense?


All I was correcting was his saying "months" when he meant "16 days."


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> What do the producers' salaries have to do with anything?
> I'm pretty sure that no one is talking about cutting pay---the issue is how much to raise it (and by what measures).


What producers make is absolutely relevant to the equation here because residuals for all involved come from the same pie. And who controls the pie and how it gets split? I think you know who...

Reality TV is heavily dependent on story editors (writers, basically) to provide (video) editors with assembly material. The writers on reality shows argue that the production companies involved have basically created a sweatshop system. So, in quite a twisted way, there is the issue of lower pay for certain types of writers. Never mind the residual issue that's at the heart of the matter...


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> And by the time shows resume on 2 January, he will have paid an estimated $1M out of his own pocket. How does that make sense?
> 
> Don't even think for a minute that the laid-off staff workers are the studios' fault. The WGA are the ones who called for the strike. If not for the union, then individual writers could decide for themselves whether or not they wanted to accept the offered deal or find other employment. The sudden departure of all writers, leading to the shuttering of studios, is solely the responsibility of the WGA.


As another poster mentioned, production shut down (and Leno stepped in with his own money) on December 2nd. On December 7th, the AMPTP re-issued their same offer of a month prior, knowing that it would not be accepted, and broke off all negotiations, with a curt statement that they would return to the table if and only if the WGA withdrew all 6 primary proposals in full and accepted this (first and) final offer. The WGA has remained available at the table the entire time, and has offered some concessions on some of the articles in question. That is negotiation. The AMPTP, in contrast, has remained silent, except in press releases. So, except for those first 5 days, the AMPTP bears at least some, if not most, of the blame of the lack of movement on any substantive issue, and the duration of the pinch to Leno's and others' pocketbooks.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Fassade said:


> So, except for those first 5 days, the AMPTP bears at least some, if not most, of the blame of the lack of movement on any substantive issue, and the duration of the pinch to Leno's and others' pocketbooks.


Nope.

The "power" that unions have is to institute a strike and leave their employers' without workers and shut down. This is exactly what happened. The writers union left the studios shut down, but their actions hurt not only the studios, but also everyone else employed there and in ancillary industries (just like major strikes in other industries).

Your characterization of the negotiations is laughably biased, but it doesn't matter---it's the strike that's caused the layoffs and the union is solely responsible for the decision to strike. If there were no union and the writers did individual contracts with studios, there would be no massive walkouts and the non-writing staff workers would still have paychecks. The writers, of course, banded together to have more leverage with the studios and that leverage is in the ability to strike. Laid off workers is the result.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> Nope.
> 
> The "power" that unions have is to institute a strike and leave their employers' without workers and shut down. This is exactly what happened. The writers union left the studios shut down, but their actions hurt not only the studios, but also everyone else employed there and in ancillary industries (just like major strikes in other industries).
> 
> Your characterization of the negotiations is laughably biased, but it doesn't matter---it's the strike that's caused the layoffs and the union is solely responsible for the decision to strike. If there were no union and the writers did individual contracts with studios, there would be no massive walkouts and the non-writing staff workers would still have paychecks. The writers, of course, banded together to have more leverage with the studios and that leverage is in the ability to strike. Laid off workers is the result.


In your own words, nope. Stop reading only what you want to read. Nowhere have I denied the union's responsibilities in this matter. However, you seem to deny the AMPTP's responsibility. For the record -- the union struck, and they bear responsibility for those consequences.

That does not get the AMPTP off scott-free. I understand that neither you nor the AMPTP like the strike, and think it should not have happened. Fine; I do not like it either. However, once it became a fact, the producers had a range of possible responses, ranging from outright capitulation to the union's demands, to various degrees of compromise, to attempting to break the union. While I am not suggesting the AMPTP should capitulate, with their ultimatum and leaving the table on December 7, the AMPTP specifically chose a tactic whose only logical outcome would be to extend the duration of the strike as long as possible. For that, they also bear some responsibility.

In any negotiation -- in any situation at all in life -- each party is responsible for the decisions they make with the information at the time, along with any foreseeable consequences. The other party's decisions may set the stage, and restrict the range of your responses, but the response is still yours to make. Otherwise, you end up in a situation where there is all finger pointing, no personal responsibility, and no resolution. ("You struck first!" "We had to strike because of your refusal to pay new media rates!" "We had to remain firm on new media because the 1988 agreement did not cover it!" Nyah! Nyah!" and so on.) To say otherwise, that any group has no responsibility for their actions, is to indicate that group has absolutely no power to make a choice in the matter.

Since you consistently absolve the AMPTP from any responsibility, you must feel that they never had a choice to make. So, for at least the second time, I have to ask; what specifically is so unreasonable about the union's demands that leaves the AMPTP feeling they powerless even to talk?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Fassade said:


> In your own words, nope. Stop reading only what you want to read. Nowhere have I denied the union's responsibilities in this matter. However, you seem to deny the AMPTP's responsibility. For the record -- the union struck, and they bear responsibility for those consequences.
> 
> That does not get the AMPTP off scott-free. I understand that neither you nor the AMPTP like the strike, and think it should not have happened. Fine; I do not like it either. However, once it became a fact, the producers had a range of possible responses, ranging from outright capitulation to the union's demands, to various degrees of compromise, to attempting to break the union. While I am not suggesting the AMPTP should capitulate, with their ultimatum and leaving the table on December 7, the AMPTP specifically chose a tactic whose only logical outcome would be to extend the duration of the strike as long as possible. For that, they also bear some responsibility.
> 
> ...


The producers are in the position of power in this negotiation. They can wait out the strike much longer than writers and the rest of the industry can. They feel their offers have been fair. Giving in to any of the WGA's demands transfers some of their power to their adversaries and that's just not smart negotiation. I have no problem with the tactics of the AMPTP, but that's partially because I'm rooting for the strike to last quite a while. I think in the long run, it will be better for the industry if some of the outdated traditions are scrapped due to a long shutdown.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

bareyb said:


> I guess this one of those examples of "unprecedented support" the writers keep claiming. What about all the people the writers are hurting by walking off the job? *How about us as the viewing public?* Do they really think taking something away from us is going to pull us over to their way of thinking? It's done just the opposite. I think residuals are ridiculous. I hope they get done away with entirely. I also hope this strike fails miserably for the writers. Maybe they will think twice before they walk away next time.





bareyb said:


> Yes. It would be wrong to walk off the job and then try to take everyone else with you. In any other world other than theirs that would be illegal. *Why punish all of us because they can't negotiate a deal they like at work?* That's really all it comes down to for me. Settle your differences amongst yourselves and *don't drag me (and the rest of the viewing public)* into your fight as a way to put pressure on YOUR bosses to pay you more. It's an unfair advantage that nobody should have and in fact almost nobody does. Most of us have to fight our own battles.


Barey, while I agree with your position overall, I think you hurt your credibility in this debate when you use your personal desire for TV shows as a reason for your position. It makes you sound petty and selfish. It's like the people who want a sports strike/lockout to end just because they want to watch a game. I'd much rather have it go on as long as it needs to to correct the problems in the industry. Short-term isn't that important.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Fassade said:


> However, you seem to deny the AMPTP's responsibility. For the record -- the union struck, and they bear responsibility for those consequences.


You said that the studios bear some responsibility for Leno having to pay his staff. I disagree. The union went on strike and that's why those people are out of work. It's that simple.

Do the studios bear responsibility for anything? Of course. Both the studios and the union bear responsibility for the breakdown of negotiations. However, the studios do not bear any responsibility for stopping work; that was the union's decision.

There are of course two sides to the story of how and why the negotiations broke off. The WGA claim that the studios gave a unreasonable "ultimatum". The studios claim that the unions prevented forward progress by shifting focus from new media to reality shows, etc.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> You said that the studios bear some responsibility for Leno having to pay his staff. I disagree. The union went on strike and that's why those people are out of work. It's that simple.


No argument here that the union bears some culpability here.


Amnesia said:


> Do the studios bear responsibility for anything? Of course. Both the studios and the union bear responsibility for the breakdown of negotiations. However, the studios do not bear any responsibility for stopping work; that was the union's decision.


The WGA is at the table. The studios are not. The lack of presence at the table can only extend the duration of the strike. Therefore, the studios bear some responsibility for this extended duration, and therefore for the consequences of the extended duration.


Amnesia said:


> There are of course two sides to the story of how and why the negotiations broke off. The WGA claim that the studios gave a unreasonable "ultimatum".


The studios gave a proposal in November. It was rejected. They gave essentially the same proposal in December, and walked away unless and until all six points were accepted in full. That is the very definition of an ultimatum. No reasonable person could expect the same action, when repeated twice, to have different outcomes -- that is one definition of insanity. I for one do not think the studios are insane, and it follows then that they did not intend to settle any issue of substance.


Amnesia said:


> The studios claim that the unions prevented forward progress by shifting focus from new media to reality shows, etc.


I agree that the WGA erred in trying to expand their focus to reality and animation writers. The WGA also indicated publicly, well before they offered to talk with individual production companies, that they were willing to move on those points, but the studios are not at the table to listen, and reiterated they will not listen unless the writers move not only on these points, but accept every point of a twice-rejected proposal. What else would you have the writers to do close the gap?


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> I agree that the WGA erred in trying to expand their focus to reality and animation writers. The WGA also indicated publicly, well before they offered to talk with individual production companies, that they were willing to move on those points, but the studios are not at the table to listen, and reiterated they will not listen unless the writers move not only on these points, but accept every point of a twice-rejected proposal. What else would you have the writers to do close the gap?


From what I read it was two different proposals. I haven't actually read the proposals but my understanding was that it was two different offers that said different things to a point.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

needo said:


> From what I read it was two different proposals. I haven't actually read the proposals but my understanding was that it was two different offers that said different things to a point.


On the proposals the WGA said in November mattered most, there was no movement. Chief among these is that of internet distribution. The AMPTP's initial proposal was for free streaming for 6 weeks, then a flat $250 for unlimited streaming thereafter, effectively ending residuals for streaming. The studios also demanded to pay only DVD rates for internet distribution, even if the 1988 negotiated basis for a lesser DVD rate was the cost of packaging and distribution, costs which are statistically insignificant online. If the WGA is to be believed, the AMPTP unofficially said that they would negotiate on these issues if the WGA agreed to change their DVD residual demands. The WGA did, and the AMPTP offer had no change between November 4 and December 7.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Can't studios legally hire full time replacements for any writers on strike? I thought that was part of the labor laws involving collective bargaining.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Fassade said:


> I agree that the WGA erred in trying to expand their focus to reality and animation writers. The WGA also indicated publicly, well before they offered to talk with individual production companies, that they were willing to move on those points, but the studios are not at the table to listen, and reiterated they will not listen unless the writers move not only on these points, but accept every point of a twice-rejected proposal. What else would you have the writers to do close the gap?


So you're saying that the WGA added a point that they publicly admitted they were willing to cave on, and that somehow is them "closing the gap?" All they did was artificially put a throw-away position in there to make them look like the good guys in the negotiations, while never intending to actually negotiate on any of their real positions.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> Can't studios legally hire full time replacements for any writers on strike? I thought that was part of the labor laws involving collective bargaining.


Sure they could. But it would be career suicide for anyone to actually take that kind of work. Hollywood is very much a union town, and someone who crossed picket lines like that would be blackballed forever.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TAsunder said:


> Can't studios legally hire full time replacements for any writers on strike? I thought that was part of the labor laws involving collective bargaining.


They can in theory, but even the studios know that writers are highly skilled professionals, and replacing them with amateurs would be disastrous.

During the last strike, a couple of production companies tried to hire scab writers, and I don't believe anything that was written was good enough to be aired, even during a strike.

Then there's the problem of scab writers being essentially unhirable after the strike ends.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

So the WGA is picketing the Golden Globes. Talk about a hugely misguided PR move. They've been on the defensive lately, and it's hilarious to watch them squirm.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> So you're saying that the WGA added a point that they publicly admitted they were willing to cave on, and that somehow is them "closing the gap?" All they did was artificially put a throw-away position in there to make them look like the good guys in the negotiations, while never intending to actually negotiate on any of their real positions.


Umm...that is precisely how negotiation works. Both sides start by asking for more than they predict they can win, try to win it, but then give back and forth until hopefully both get enough of what they want, and give up nothing they cannot afford to give. For example, I sincerely doubt the studios expect, when all this is done, to pay a $250 flat fee for a year's usage of writers' material, nor do they expect to pay the distribution-adjusted DVD rate on a medium of distribution that has near-zero distribution costs. If they get it, great, but, regardless, it gives them useful bargaining chips to state these positions, and remove them only in exchange for concessions from the WGA. The problem is that the AMPTP stated their initial positions, and then walked away even as the WGA took a chip off the table. This is either bad faith, in that they publicly announce an intention to negotiate, but do not sit at the table, or stupid, in that their opening round was the bare minimum they could afford to give and survive. Since, as the AMPTP repeatedly points out, their team has negotiated 360 separate WGA deals in the past few decades, I think they are not stupid.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Fassade said:


> Umm...that is precisely how negotiation works. Both sides start by asking for more than they predict they can win, try to win it, but then give back and forth until hopefully both get enough of what they want, and give up nothing they cannot afford to give. For example, I sincerely doubt the studios expect, when all this is done, to pay a $250 flat fee for a year's usage of writers' material, nor do they expect to pay the distribution-adjusted DVD rate on a medium of distribution that has near-zero distribution costs. If they get it, great, but, regardless, it gives them useful bargaining chips to state these positions, and remove them only in exchange for concessions from the WGA. The problem is that the AMPTP stated their initial positions, and then walked away even as the WGA took a chip off the table. This is either bad faith, in that they publicly announce an intention to negotiate, but do not sit at the table, or stupid, in that their opening round was the bare minimum they could afford to give and survive. Since, as the AMPTP repeatedly points out, their team has negotiated 360 separate WGA deals in the past few decades, I think they are not stupid.


You apparently missed my point. Clearly when you start a negotiation, you ask for more than you eventually expect to get. What I'm saying is that it's pretty disingenuous to add another point (reality and animation writers) late in the game and publicly say that you're willing to back off on that point. They can't use that to claim they're being flexible in their negotiations.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Sure they could. But it would be career suicide for anyone to actually take that kind of work. Hollywood is very much a union town, and someone who crossed picket lines like that would be blackballed forever.


Still, many people would probably do it anyway I'd imagine. It would be fun to see such programs. They would probably resemble beer commercials from the 80's.


----------



## jhausmann (Aug 21, 2002)

Hmm, consulting my crystal ball, I see that we will be subject to a steady diet of reality TV, which will lower viewership, which will lower advertising revenue, which will lead to permanent job losses, which will lead to more reality TV. 

Congratulations to both sides for killing network television. In your current stare down, both sides have lost view as to who's paying for this stuff...


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

doom1701 said:


> The Leno and Conan stuff surprises me. They claim that they are still supporting the writers, but they are going to cross the picket lines and start their shows back up. To me, it doesn't matter if they are going to go "unscripted" or not--it's still an act of defiance against the union.
> 
> I'm not sure if Leno is a member of the WGA, but I know Conan is--and something tells me this isn't going to bode well for that union membership.


My understanding is the writers on their shows and others understand, because the networks essentially tell these guys that if they don't go back to work the shows will simply be canceled permanently. And a lot of people will be out of work. That is how they got Carson back the last time.

What I don't understandis why this does not work with every show. I guess they figure the talk shows can put on SOMETHING with no writing, while a sitcom or drama would be in trouble with no writing.

So in essence the networks are threatening to fire the hosts, fire everyone who works on the shows who is no a writer AND fire the writers

So the writers have little problem with the hosts going back in those circumstances. The hosts have been nothing but supportive of the strike, but there is only so far you can take it.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

TivoZorro said:


> TV Guide is reporting that if the strike goes well into 2008 the following will happen:
> 
> 1. No Fall Season - no new pilots - no new season launch. And once that cycle is broken there will be a more year-round TV season


This is my one hope for the strike goign an extended period of time. If there was a real potential to crush the seasonality of television here I would be all for a bit of darkness for 6 months.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Barey, while I agree with your position overall, I think you hurt your credibility in this debate when you use your personal desire for TV shows as a reason for your position.


I was aware of how it might make me look when I posted it. I'm only saying what many are thinking and it's only one aspect of my position. But yeah, I do resent being pulled into a contract negotiation in this manner. The honest truth is, I have no dog in this fight. I have no interest in helping the writers get more money and in effect that is what the strike is trying to make us as the viewing public do. They want the public to put pressure on the networks.

Many in the public are having a knee jerk reaction to the strike and are immediately siding with "labor". Try to see this from an employers point of view. Picture yourself as a company owner who is losing their ass due to your workers walking off the job and taking everyone with them. Picketing your front sidewalk and talking crap about you in the paper.

My position is not that that "I won't support the strike so I can watch TV". I won't support the strike because I think it's an unfair tactic. If you want to insure that the writers will shut down TV again in the future then by all means get involved and support the strike. FWIW I worked in the Union for a few years in my youth and all they ever did for me was take my money. I made far more money when I broke with the Unions and went free lance. None of us in the union really appreciated them and most of us wished we hadn't been forced to join. Yes forced... It was another case of "join our union or we will take every single person off the job".


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Sure they could. But it would be career suicide for anyone to actually take that kind of work. Hollywood is very much a union town, and someone who crossed picket lines like that would be blackballed forever.


Yeah moreso than any other union situation I could think of, this would be the worst case to be a scab.

You would almost guarantee yourself of never working in Hollywood ever again once the strike is resolved. Too many WGA members call the shots in terms of who writes. The producers themselves are not likely to give you a shot because some WGA member will be in the way.

Scab situations are bad, but usually there are a few opportunities simply because there is some higher power who doesn't care. In this case, most of the decision makers would care.

No scab writer would ever get a tv writing gig because a tv writer would have to hire them. They would not get a job to write a movie script, most likely, and producers would have pressure put on them by writers who might blackball them for using scab talent.

I think the strike could be ended with scab talent pretty quickly, as I expect there are a lot of unknown and potentially talented writers out there... so there is no lack of talent. It is all about opportunity though... and those who seriously want to be writers are not going to risk their long-term aspirations for a short-term shot.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> You apparently missed my point. Clearly when you start a negotiation, you ask for more than you eventually expect to get. What I'm saying is that it's pretty disingenuous to add another point (reality and animation writers) late in the game and publicly say that you're willing to back off on that point. They can't use that to claim they're being flexible in their negotiations.


Not at all, but what you miss is that the WGA put reality TV on the table immediately. I know that the AMPTP says the writers brought this up late, but that is simply not true. In fact, on October 24, Variety reported that WGAW was giving up on that demand, which the WGA immediately and publicly said was unfounded speculation, and untrue, and that they indeded to pursue reality writers. Variety's archives do not appear to go back that far, but you can still find references to it on DHD, WGA, and other admittedly pro-writer sites. It is hard to claim the writers brought this up late in the game, if a newspaper erroneously reported they were giving up on it before the game even began. They most definitely brought up reality at the outset, though they screwed up by leaving it a bullet point, and not a focus of discussion, for the first few days. (I do not know about animation writers.)

Regardless, if you page back a couple of pages in this very thread, I said that I totally disagreed with the WGA's tactics on this matter, because it, early or late, it is a jurisdictional issue, and bringing that up would allow the AMPTP the ability to lob charges of bad faith right back at them.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Fassade said:


> Not at all, but what you miss is that the WGA put reality TV on the table immediately. I know that the AMPTP says the writers brought this up late, but that is simply not true. In fact, on October 24, Variety reported that WGAW was giving up on that demand, which the WGA immediately and publicly said was unfounded speculation, and untrue, and that they indeded to pursue reality writers. Variety's archives do not appear to go back that far, but you can still find references to it on DHD, WGA, and other admittedly pro-writer sites. It is hard to claim the writers brought this up late in the game, if a newspaper erroneously reported they were giving up on it before the game even began. They most definitely brought up reality at the outset, though they screwed up by leaving it a bullet point, and not a focus of discussion, for the first few days. (I do not know about animation writers.)
> 
> Regardless, if you page back a couple of pages in this very thread, I said that I totally disagreed with the WGA's tactics on this matter, because it, early or late, it is a jurisdictional issue, and bringing that up would allow the AMPTP the ability to lob charges of bad faith right back at them.


I'm not following the details of this strike that closely. I honestly don't really care. I'll find something to keep me entertained no matter how long the strike lasts. I was simply replying to what you wrote at the end of post #189 in this thread. The way I understood what you wrote was that the WGA added their demands to include reality and animation writers after all of their initial proposals and then publicly said they're willing to take those demands off the table. If that's not actually how it happened, then I misunderstood what you wrote.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm not following the details of this strike that closely. I honestly don't really care. I'll find something to keep me entertained no matter how long the strike lasts. I was simply replying to what you wrote at the end of post #189 in this thread. The way I understood what you wrote was that the WGA added their demands to include reality and animation writers after all of their initial proposals and then publicly said they're willing to take those demands off the table. If that's not actually how it happened, then I misunderstood what you wrote.


No worries -- for my part, I could have been more clear, and I *definitely* think the writers tactics were not as appropriate as they should have been on at least this point


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> What do the producers' salaries have to do with anything?
> I'm pretty sure that no one is talking about cutting pay---the issue is how much to raise it (and by what measures).


The producers and studios salaries and earnings have everything to do with it. The studios have gone on the record on various shows in the past stating how much they were making and going to make from these ad supported airings on the internet.

Then when it comes to contract time, they plead amnesia about earnings, and want to study the situation for a few more years before they can come to any deal.

If you make money based on TV airings, and 10 years in the future TV airings are cut in 1/2 because of internet airings, yet you get no money on said internet airings, your earnings are cut.

-smak-


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

smak said:


> The producers and studios salaries and earnings have everything to do with it.


Studios are companies; they don't get "salaries". Producers are employees, just like writers. They get salaries a/o points net or gross---whatever they've negotiated with the production company.


smak said:


> If you make money based on TV airings, and 10 years in the future TV airings are cut in 1/2 because of internet airings, yet you get no money on said internet airings, your earnings are cut.


That's not the same thing as claiming that the "producers" are trying to cut their pay. That suggests, like in the ridiculous grocery store analogy, that an employer is trying to reduce the negotiated-upon rate/measure of pay. That's not what's happening at all.

Instead, both the writers and the studios are trying to arrive at a new measure of payment. Unfortunately, the two sides don't seem to be able to reach an agreement.


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> Studios are companies; they don't get "salaries".


In the biz, 'studio' can mean many things. In the context of 'producers and _studios_ salaries,' studio is typically shorthand for the studio executives who oversee shows. Basically the folks that writers pitch shows to during pilot season. Those 'studios' most certainly draw a salary _and_ residual deals. Many are billed as Executive Producers (often in the first plate of the end credits) on a show.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> Studios are companies; they don't get "salaries". Producers are employees, just like writers. They get salaries a/o points net or gross---whatever they've negotiated with the production company.
> That's not the same thing as claiming that the "producers" are trying to cut their pay. That suggests, like in the ridiculous grocery store analogy, that an employer is trying to reduce the negotiated-upon rate/measure of pay. That's not what's happening at all.
> 
> Instead, both the writers and the studios are trying to arrive at a new measure of payment. Unfortunately, the two sides don't seem to be able to reach an agreement.


I said producers and studios, followed by salaries and earnings. I think it's pretty clear who gets what.

The grocery store analogy is far from ridiculous. People are saying the writers shouldn't strike because it inconveniences television watchers. I said that grocery strikes inconvenience grocery shoppers too.

I brought up the fact that some people think that no matter what the owners do, people can't strike because it inconveniences people. So I made up some ridiculous salary cuts to prove my point, and it proved my point. No matter what management does, no matter how it treats it's employees, some people think the employees have to just sit and take it, or quit.

The writers are asking for a new form of payment. A new form of payment that any one of us would ask for in the same situation in another field.

-smak-


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

smak said:


> The writers are asking for a new form of payment.


A new form of payment to replace the one they've been steadily losing over the past decade or two.


----------



## jhausmann (Aug 21, 2002)

Seems to me, the writer's union is going about it all wrong (or the networks have strategically insulated themselves). NBC would be far more willing to cut a deal if the writers only struck NBC producers while working without a (or under the existing) contract with the other networks. After you get one network signed, you take on the next. Think UAW and how they deal with Chrylser, Ford and GM. No network would fail to negotiate while the other Networks are getting full advertising dollar.

As it stands the writer's union is using the viewing public as it's means of leverage. The Networks don't give a crap because, in the public eye, they're not the bad guys.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I don't really care about Leno, Conan or Letterman. I want my Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert back.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

jhausmann said:


> Seems to me, the writer's union is going about it all wrong (or the networks have strategically insulated themselves). NBC would be far more willing to cut a deal if the writers only struck NBC producers while working without a (or under the existing) contract with the other networks. After you get one network signed, you take on the next. Think UAW and how they deal with Chrylser, Ford and GM. No network would fail to negotiate while the other Networks are getting full advertising dollar.


Writers don't work for networks. They work for production studios. Some production studios are owned by networks, and some are not. The Tonight Show is produced by a production studio owned by NBC, but the Late Show with David Letterman is produced by a production studio that is not owned by CBS (it is actually mostly owned by Letterman himself). CBS buys the show from the studio. The production studios deal with multiple networks, so it won't be like NBC would be shut out while CBS isn't. It would be show by show.

That is not to say your idea isn't a good one from the writers' perspective. Maybe they're starting to realize it is, which is why they're negotiating with the individual studios. The aforementioned Worldwide Pants, owned by David Letterman, appears to be first, mostly because Letterman is willing to give the writers what they're asking for, which is probably because what they're asking for, higher residuals on internet distributions and home video, is much less valuable with talk shows than with sit-coms and dramas. Though, Worldwide Pants has produced sit-coms, too. They produced Everybody Loves Raymond.



jhausmann said:


> As it stands the writer's union is using the viewing public as it's means of leverage. The Networks don't give a crap because, in the public eye, they're not the bad guys.


I think that depends on the perspective of the individual member of the public, as this thread shows.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

aindik said:


> That is not to say your idea isn't a good one from the writers' perspective. Maybe they're starting to realize it is, which is why they're negotiating with the individual studios.


The problem is studios are notoriously good at sticking together. The WGA has never succeeded in cutting one out from the herd in this manner, and it doesn't look like it's going to happen with Letterman.

The shock this time around isn't how unified the studios are, it's how unified the writers are. That's never happened before.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Interesting opinion column in the LA Times today:

Curtains for the guilds


----------



## jhausmann (Aug 21, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The problem is studios are notoriously good at sticking together. The WGA has never succeeded in cutting one out from the herd in this manner, and it doesn't look like it's going to happen with Letterman.
> 
> The shock this time around isn't how unified the studios are, it's how unified the writers are. That's never happened before.


I find it hard to believe that CBS wouldn't be showing episodes from shows that had non-striking writers while NBC shows were being struck. I understand what AINDIK was saying about how the production studios work now but that's what's blocking a settlement. The writer's union should either target strikes against the shows shown on particular networks or bargain for a one production company, one network setup.

The system, as it stands now, insulates the networks from direct assault to the disadvantage of the writers. The production companies only have to deal with one "front", there is no pressure from the networks to resolve the strike. Target a single network and pressure will result.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

latrobe7 said:


> Interesting opinion column in the LA Times today:
> 
> Curtains for the guilds


I really don't buy the premise, because unless the "well-known and the well-heeled" plan on writing every episode of every show, there simply won't be enough writers to fill a normal TV schedule.

It could be true of movies, since you usually only have 1 or 2 screenwriters for a flick, but a season long TV show has dozens of writers, mostly just 1 off gigs, and then you have the showrunners, and head writers, etc....

TV writing & directing is not a star system like they can be in the movies.

-smak-


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

Funny comic regarding the Writer's Strike: http://xkcd.org/


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> I don't really care about Leno, Conan or Letterman. I want my Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert back.


Both return on January 7th. http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=...ll=la-headlines-business-enter&cid=1125120848


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

smak said:


> I really don't buy the premise, because unless the "well-known and the well-heeled" plan on writing every episode of every show, there simply won't be enough writers to fill a normal TV schedule.
> 
> It could be true of movies, since you usually only have 1 or 2 screenwriters for a flick, but a season long TV show has dozens of writers, mostly just 1 off gigs, and then you have the showrunners, and head writers, etc....
> 
> ...


I think it's a great article. If people started to go back to work in defiance of the WGA, as the story predicts, then it wouldn't be hard to get more people to follow. Those who need the money (which will likely be many of them) will abandon their principles in order to feed their families. Considering that there are twice as many writers in the WGA as are needed for current projects at any given time, I don't think there would be any shortage of writers willing to go back to work, nor those willing to stick to the strike.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think it's a great article. If people started to go back to work in defiance of the WGA, as the story predicts, then it wouldn't be hard to get more people to follow. Those who need the money (which will likely be many of them) will abandon their principles in order to feed their families. Considering that there are twice as many writers in the WGA as are needed for current projects at any given time, I don't think there would be any shortage of writers willing to go back to work, nor those willing to stick to the strike.


The WGA would be foolish to rule out this scenario. For those who do not want to read the article, it is based on two premises:

The studios settle with the DGA, giving them some ability to continue production and ammunition to paint the WGA and the SAG as the bad guys.
*Just* enough writers and actors break from their unions to keep shows running profitably.
Given these two situations, both the WGA and SAG could collapse. While the WGA is showing more solidarity than they ever have in the past, the article talks about 6, 8, 10 months down the road, and a lot can happen in that amount of time.

Even if so, this could very well be a "be careful what you wish for" scenario for the studios. Not only would a 10 month layoff likely shrink the overall audience, but this sort of victory can cause its own legal problems. Probably the closest analogue to the scenario in this article is the 1987 NFL players strike.

NFL players, with more leverage but less planning than the writers, struck for free agency, among other things. (While the NFL is a single organization, its bargaining is on behalf of its independently owned franchises, much like the AMPTP negotiates on behalf of its constituent independent production companies.) The NFL fielded games with replacement players; the quality suffered, but the games went on, albeit with a financial hit. NBC even aired a few CFL games, if I recall correctly. After three games and lost paychecks, a few dozen high profile players crossed the line and returned to play. The players' union crumbled shortly thereafter.

However, immediately after the union was decertified, it reformed as a players' association, sued the NFL and its owners on antitrust grounds, and won. The owners ended up granting many (not all) of the players demands, and the union reformed in 1993. The NFL owners "won" that strike, but it was a Pyrrhic victory for everybody the lawyers.

While the analogy is far from perfect, there are enough similarities that if the courts found the studios to be effectively "the only game in town," they could be vulnerable to the same legal challenge. Either way, it would be an expensive fight both sides should wish to avoid.

The writers should not discount this scenario, but neither the studios should not count on it. Sudios, writers, actors, directors all need to realize they do not have as much leverage as they think.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I think the biggest thing I took out of that article is that there is an accepted form of going against the union, called "financial core," which allows people in the striking union to forgo their voting rights in the union but still continue to work. If that's considered acceptable, I can't imagine that more and more people are going to start taking advantage of it, especially as the real financial struggles start to hit.


----------



## jhausmann (Aug 21, 2002)

Might see some movement now, now that Letterman has settled...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22421779/


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

jhausmann said:


> Might see some movement now, now that Letterman has settled...
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22421779/


From the article it looks like Leno and Conan (and a few others) are all going to return to work as well but without the writers. This is going to give Letterman a huge advantage over the other talk shows. I'd guess that will be reflected in the ratings... Good for Dave I guess. I'll be watching.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Letterman just earned his salary for the year (if not more). CBS can now go to town promoting the HELL out of the fact that while the other shows have to go on without writers, The Late Show (and the Late Late show, I presume) will be back in it's old form, with writers, monologues, etc., everything viewers expect to see on the show.

I wonder if Jon Stewart could do the same thing now with "The Colbert Report," since it's very similar - head writer as executive producer, mostly independent production company, etc. (The Daily Show wouldn't be included, since it's not a Busboy Productions show.)


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

What I hear these days from a buddy who's a WGA member suggests that this whole situation is just getting weirder and less likely to settle quickly. He says that there was a package ready for a vote by the WGA about a week ago, but two hours before voting was supposed to open, AMPTP pulled the entire offer from the table and the vote was canceled. 

That sort of behavior borders on failure to negotiate in good faith, a violation of the NLRA.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

AJRitz said:


> What I hear these days from a buddy who's a WGA member suggests that this whole situation is just getting weirder and less likely to settle quickly. He says that there was a package ready for a vote by the WGA about a week ago, but two hours before voting was supposed to open, AMPTP pulled the entire offer from the table and the vote was canceled.
> 
> That sort of behavior borders on failure to negotiate in good faith, a violation of the NLRA.


Frankly, I'm rather surprised that they didn't get the NLRB involved after the AMPTP's pre-scripted ultimatum-then-walkout nonsense. I mean, the WGA wanted to stay and negotiate, the AMPTP didn't. That right there smacks of failure to negotiate in good faith.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

I find it a bit odd that the WGA allows individual negotiations during this strike. Doesn't that undermine their entire effort?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

MickeS said:


> I find it a bit odd that the WGA allows individual negotiations during this strike. Doesn't that undermine their entire effort?


Not if they get their way in the individual negotiations, which is apparently the case here...

Now they have precedent on their side. Not sure it will matter in the face of AMPTP intransigence, but...


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

In my view both sides are acting childish and the strike has now degraded in to the WGA and AMPTP doing nothing more then issuing press statements at each other. Both sides need to stop acting like whiny 5 year olds and be adults and work something out. And please do not come back at me with how its all the WGA's fault or the AMPTP's. The fault is shared by both sides who are working harder at spinning things in the press then at the negotiation table.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

needo said:


> The fault is shared by both sides who are working harder at spinning things in the press then at the negotiation table.


...although the fact that one side is _at_ the negotiating table and the other is not is surely significant...


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

needo said:


> Funny comic regarding the Writer's Strike: http://xkcd.org/


Damn you. I've just wasted an hour reading that entire series of strips (actually, I'm not done yet but needed to return).



The best part is the alt-text comment in each one.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

I think I mentioned it a while back, but I thought it would be a weird outcome that this strike actually ended the producers group.

With the Letterman deal in place, unless the producers group wakes up very quickly that is exactly what will happen. Their people already make a lot of money, and not working is costing them more money then they will ever save by dragging this on. On top of that, the people whom they are trying to withhold money from are their friends and co-workers, people they know and rely on. In a big picture way the thing makes sense. On a show by show level not so much.

I think we will see more and more independent agreements coming through now. the producers are going to rue the day they decided to play games instead of negotiating. They made a big mistake here. The only way to fix it is to come to agreement soon.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

marksman said:


> I think we will see more and more independent agreements coming through now. the producers are going to rue the day they decided to play games instead of negotiating. They made a big mistake here. The only way to fix it is to come to agreement soon.


If writers begin negotiating their own deals, how do you guys think this might effect the possibility of future strikes? Seems to me it would undermine that course of action in the future wouldn't it?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

bareyb said:


> If writers begin negotiating their own deals, how do you guys think this might effect the possibility of future strikes? Seems to me it would undermine that course of action in the future wouldn't it?


Huh?

This is a case of an independent producer negotiating his own deal with the WGA, not a writer negotiating a separate deal.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

MickeS said:


> I find it a bit odd that the WGA allows individual negotiations during this strike. Doesn't that undermine their entire effort?


The WGA isn't "allowing" individual negotiations. It is negotiating with individual producers. The deal isn't between the Letterman writers and Worldwide Pants. It's between the WGA and Worldwide Pants.

If Worldwide Pants can produce original programming while other producers can't, that might influence the other producers to get back to the table.

Of course, this deal with Worldwide Pants is a special case because the type of programming Worldwide Pants creates, principally, (talk shows) doens't benefit from redistribution on DVD or online the way sit-coms and dramas do. So, Worldwide Pants is more likely to give the WGA what it wants on post-air distribution becuase, for the Letterman show and the Ferguson show, what the WGA wants isn't going to amount to much money.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

LoadStar said:


> Letterman just earned his salary for the year (if not more). CBS can now go to town promoting the HELL out of the fact that while the other shows have to go on without writers, The Late Show (and the Late Late show, I presume) will be back in it's old form, with writers, monologues, etc., everything viewers expect to see on the show.


Of course, going on Letterman by some celebrities may be seen as crossing the picket line so it will be interesting to see who will and will not be willing to show up.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

rainwater said:


> Of course, going on Letterman by some celebrities may be seen as crossing the picket line so it will be interesting to see who will and will not be willing to show up.


SAG President Alan Rosenberg released a statement on this issue:



> Screen Actors Guild members will be happy to appear on The Late Show with David Letterman and Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson with union writers at work and without crossing WGA picket lines


Of course, that does not necessarily mean that celebrities with a current movie/show/book to promote will not go on Leno, as well. Time will tell...


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

I see this as a victory for both sides. Even both sides here on the forum. It still seems to me that negotiating with the producers somewhat undercuts the other strikers who are not negotiating directly. Any word on how they feel about all this? Are they happy about this latest development too?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

bareyb said:


> I see this as a victory for both sides. Even both sides here on the forum. It still seems to me that negotiating with the producers somewhat undercuts the other strikers who are not negotiating directly. Any word on how they feel about all this? Are they happy about this latest development too?


I'm not sure you understand what is happening. Letterman's production company has come to a contract agreement with the ENTIRE WRITER'S GUILD. NO strikers are left out of this agreement. It is all the other producers who are left out (and thus can't get writers to write for them).


----------



## Jolt (Jan 9, 2006)

Im to the point of wanting to organize a lawsuit. I cant deal with reruns much longer lol.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm not sure you understand what is happening. Letterman's production company has come to a contract agreement with the ENTIRE WRITER'S GUILD. NO strikers are left out of this agreement. It is all the other producers who are left out (and thus can't get writers to write for them).


Rob. I understand fully. I see this as a mutual victory. Sorry if that pisses you off, but that's how I see it. Now go away.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

aindik said:


> Of course, this deal with Worldwide Pants is a special case because the type of programming Worldwide Pants creates, principally, (talk shows) doens't benefit from redistribution on DVD or online the way sit-coms and dramas do. So, Worldwide Pants is more likely to give the WGA what it wants on post-air distribution becuase, for the Letterman show and the Ferguson show, what the WGA wants isn't going to amount to much money.


I was just talking to someone about this earlier. In light of the Letterman deal, most people feel the latenight shows are on their own. So it will take a scripted show to make a deal for things to break open. I think if and when that happens it will start things on a downward slide for the producers.

The question is who will it be? I suspect most Network produced shows will not be the ones to do this. So it would likely be a non-network produced show. Also someone where the Showrunner is the creative force/head writer is more likely, as he works with the writers and probably has strong relationships with them and does not want to hang them out to dry, and would not begrudge them money, potentially.

I am not sure it will happen, but if a Major Network show of any note makes an agreement (or the company who produces more than one show), I think this will end soon. The producers are losing a lot of money every day this goes on as well.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

bareyb said:


> Rob. I understand fully. I see this as a mutual victory. Sorry if that pisses you off, but that's how I see it. Now go away.


OK, sorry. I thought that since you kept saying other writers were being left out of the agreement with Worldwide Pants, you thought that other writers were being left out of the agreement with Worldwide Pants.

And it didn't piss me off when I thought about you not understanding. I just wanted you to understand so you wouldn't say things like "negotiating with the producers somewhat undercuts the other strikers who are not negotiating directly" or "If writers begin negotiating their own deals, how do you guys think this might effect the possibility of future strikes? Seems to me it would undermine that course of action in the future wouldn't it?"...which cause the (apparently illusory) impression that you don't understand what the Letterman deal means.

So if you could please explain, how is one producer breaking ranks with the others and giving the WGA everything that they want a victory for the producers?


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> OK, sorry...
> 
> So if you could please explain, how is one producer breaking ranks with the others and giving the WGA everything that they want a victory for the producers?


No worries Rob. As to the last part I think you are seeing things too black and white. Nobody is getting "everything they want". I see this as a compromise. A work around. Everyone's happy at the Letterman show and nobody is pissed on the side of the strikers. There's been plenty of satire going around about Letterman being "a scab" etc. So I wasn't sure how well the rest of the rank and file would take this news.

I am leaving town for a week and I won't have internet access. So I'm out of this fight for now. Have a happy new year.

Peace.
bareyb


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

marksman said:


> I was just talking to someone about this earlier. In light of the Letterman deal, most people feel the latenight shows are on their own. So it will take a scripted show to make a deal for things to break open. I think if and when that happens it will start things on a downward slide for the producers.


Or on the flip side an entire staff of writers for a show not being able to tread water any longer financially decide to declare financial core and go back to work. I see this happening sooner then any thing else. It's one thing for a corporation to lose money as there are many different ways to stay afloat and generate revenue. These ways do not exist for the individual on the picket line.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

marksman said:


> I was just talking to someone about this earlier. In light of the Letterman deal, most people feel the latenight shows are on their own. So it will take a scripted show to make a deal for things to break open. I think if and when that happens it will start things on a downward slide for the producers.


Does this deal apply to all Wolrdwide Pants productions, or just the talk shows? WWP has made scripted shows (Everybody Loves Raymond), though I do not think they have any on the air currently. If the strike lasts long enough, it will be interesting to see if this separate deal gives them any leg up getting back in that arena; presumably, writer/creators pitching new show ideas will stop there first, and, also presumably, not every network would pass on a (good) show coming out of WWP as a result of this deal.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

There was an article somewhere (I read a lot of internet plus the LA Times) that essentially said that the money the studios would be paying for the internet downloads etc. is not that much compared to their entire revenue. Of course to an individual writer any more money would always be welcome just like if where ever you worked even if you make quite a bit of money a little raise or bonus is always nice. It sounds like the studios are dragging their feet for some reason not necessairly to do with money. Weird.

I have on my 140 hour Tivo about 90 hours so I am fine and I have Netflix.


----------



## WO312 (Jan 24, 2003)

As I go through life, I've come to realize that it's usually not about the money.

It's about power. Having it, getting it, and keeping it.

For me, though, personally, it's usually about the money.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

sieglinde said:


> It sounds like the studios are dragging their feet for some reason not necessairly to do with money. Weird.


Last I heard, the studios are willing to talk to the union about the money---the only problem is that the WGA is also trying to add other things to the talks, like WGA control over reality show writers and animators. Weird.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> Last I heard, the studios are willing to talk to the union about the money---the only problem is that the WGA is also trying to add other things to the talks, like WGA control over reality show writers and animators. Weird.


...except the WGA has been talking about those things for years, and they were always a part of these negotiations. The studios are just suddenly using that as an excuse not to talk about New Media.

As for the money issue, that's exactly what it is. The studios remember vividly how many billions of dollars they made after the last strike by cutting writers out of video profits. Sure, New Media profits aren't enormous right now, but if the studios cut the writers out before they get big, then they'll have the same perpetual windfall on New Media as they do on video.

The problem is, the WGA remembers those billions as well, and aren't as willing to bend over this time.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

sieglinde said:


> There was an article somewhere (I read a lot of internet plus the LA Times) that essentially said that the money the studios would be paying for the internet downloads etc. is not that much compared to their entire revenue.


I'm pretty sure it was less than 1% of revenues.

-smak-


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> ...except the WGA has been talking about those things for years, and they were always a part of these negotiations. The studios are just suddenly using that as an excuse not to talk about New Media.


Hardly.

The WGA and its shills keep saying that the only reason the strike is still on is because the studios are too "greedy" about DVD residuals. I haven't seen a single thing from the writers' side acknowledging that their insistence on controlling the reality and animation show writers is a factor at all.

To me, it seems *crazy* for the WGA to try to get control over reality shows during a strike---it's the only thing on TV now! They're basically saying "OK, during this strike you have reality TV to fall back on, but we want to make sure that next time you have nothing."


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

On another note, here's a funny satire on the strike called "Strike You!".

NSFW language.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> The WGA and its shills keep saying that the only reason the strike is still on is because the studios are too "greedy" about DVD residuals.


Huh, I must be listening to the wrong WGA and its shills.

The WGA and its shills that I've been listening to haven't said much about DVD sales at all (in fact, they agreed to the studios' demand to take DVD sales off the table in order to re-open negotiations, until the studios then reneged). They're talking about not much other than New Media.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Huh, I must be listening to the wrong WGA and its shills. _(...)_ They're talking about not much other than New Media.


Why do you capitalize "new media"? OK, so they're talking about internet stuff. They're still not talking about the reality shows or animated shows.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> Why do you capitalize "new media"? OK, so they're talking about internet stuff. They're still not talking about the reality shows or animated shows.


Because New Media (or new media if you prefer) is their central issue, and the one they keep talking about. Reality and animated shows are side issues (although obviously critical to the studios, who need it as an excuse not to talk about New Media).


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Because New Media (or new media if you prefer) is their central issue, and the one they keep talking about. Reality and animated shows are side issues (although obviously critical to the studios, who need it as an excuse not to talk about New Media).


Eh. I disagree. They have been talking about new media and have come up with a plan or two that the WGA has rejected. I've heard that they were basically the same plan but I haven't read them so I can't comment on that.

But the AMPTP is not afraid of talking about new media. They do however refuse to negotiate with the power hungry leaders of the WGA who want to use this strike to get more writers under their belts.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

needo said:


> Eh. I disagree. They have been talking about new media and have come up with a plan or two that the WGA has rejected. I've heard that they were basically the same plan but I haven't read them so I can't comment on that.
> 
> But the AMPTP is not afraid of talking about new media. They do however refuse to negotiate with the power hungry leaders of the WGA who want to use this strike to get more writers under their belts.


Well, their plan is to pay a very small fee to internet shows that qualify, and they get to decide if something qualifies. It's the kind of plan you come up with when you want it to look like you're coming up with a plan, but are terrified the other side might say "yes" so you make sure that will never happen.

And all the "power hungry leaders of the WGA" want in animation and reality is for writers who are not already covered by other unions to have the option of deciding whether or not they want to be covered by the WGA. There is not, nor has there ever been, a demand that all animation and reality writers be under the WGA.

As for refusing to negotiate, the studios said, "OK, if you take DVD revenue off the table, we'll talk." The WGA took DVD revenue off the table. Then the studios said "Did we say DVD revenue? Silly us. We meant animation and reality and virtually everything else you want to talk about."


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> As for refusing to negotiate, the studios said, "OK, if you take DVD revenue off the table, we'll talk." The WGA took DVD revenue off the table. Then the studios said "Did we say DVD revenue? Silly us. We meant animation and reality and virtually everything else you want to talk about."


Just don't claim that that the studios don't want to talk about new media residuals. They do.

And don't claim that the WGA's strike is just about new media residuals. It's not. 
f it were, then both sides would be back at the table right now.


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, their plan is to pay a very small fee to internet shows that qualify, and they get to decide if something qualifies. It's the kind of plan you come up with when you want it to look like you're coming up with a plan, but are terrified the other side might say "yes" so you make sure that will never happen.


I never said it was a good plan.  But they were at least trying *something*.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> And all the "power hungry leaders of the WGA" want in animation and reality is for writers who are not already covered by other unions to have the option of deciding whether or not they want to be covered by the WGA. There is not, nor has there ever been, a demand that all animation and reality writers be under the WGA.


Then why won't they take it off the table? International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees covers animation writers right now. So they are in effect trying to take employees from other unions now?

Source: http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/other/12/23/1223writerstrike.html



Rob Helmerichs said:


> As for refusing to negotiate, the studios said, "OK, if you take DVD revenue off the table, we'll talk." The WGA took DVD revenue off the table. Then the studios said "Did we say DVD revenue? Silly us. We meant animation and reality and virtually everything else you want to talk about."


That's not exactly what happened. The AMPTP said that if you take DVD revenue off the table we'll talk about new media. They began speaking about new media. (Without much success.) Then the WGA began making a lot of noise about the animation and reality TV writers. The AMPTP considers that a big enough reason to end negotiations. And I agree.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

needo said:


> That's not exactly what happened. The AMPTP said that if you take DVD revenue off the table we'll talk about new media. They began speaking about new media. (Without much success.) Then the WGA began making a lot of noise about the animation and reality TV writers. The AMPTP considers that a big enough reason to end negotiations. And I agree.


Variety articles at least as far back as October indicate this was the WGA's proposal; it was not a surprise bomb after the DVD setback. That said, it was still a mistake (IMHO) to demand reality/animation in this deal, and no question it gave the AMPTP a perfect reason to walk away. The current problem is now that they have this reason, the AMPTP seems determined to stay away. In answer to your question "why won't they take it off the table?" -- the WGA has painted themselves into a corner where they *can't* take it off unless the AMPTP lets them.

In the press, the AMPTP highlights the reality/animation snafu, but their official bargaining position is not limited to reality/animation. When they walked out, the AMPTP said they would return only when the WGA agrees in totality on six points. Two of them are indeed reality and animation, but the other four are more straightforward distribution-of-money type of issues, of the type that can be negotiated. Even if the WGA wanted to drop the reality/animation demands (and at this point I hope they do), the AMPTP still will not return to the table without unconditional agreement on the other four, which the WGA cannot give.

If the only reason for staying away was jurisdictional, the AMPTP would demand the reality/animation parts removed, and return to discuss the other issues, perhaps even after exacting some sanction. If the unabashedly pro-writer site deadlinehollywooddaily is to be believed, the studios rejected just such an attempt between Katzenberg and some writers to jump-start negotiations.

If the WGA seriously wants to to get the AMPTP back to the table, they need to drop those demands, loudly and publicly. If the AMPTP seriously wants to return to negotiate, they need to let them.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Reading that site, it's ironic that Jay Leno's duplicitnous 15 years ago is now coming back to haunt him.

-smak-


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Do you mean the site in the message directly above yours? I don't see any mention of Jay Leno there.. Could you elaborate on what you're talking about?
(I read "The Late Shift" btw, if recalling that would help..)


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

mattack said:


> Do you mean the site in the message directly above yours? I don't see any mention of Jay Leno there.. Could you elaborate on what you're talking about?
> (I read "The Late Shift" btw, if recalling that would help..)


Well, the reason that Dave is coming back with writers and Jay isn't, is when Leno did all his stunts that were laid out in The Late Shift, Dave shopped himself around, and got CBS to guarantee him ownership of his show and the one after, plus all that $.

To keep Letterman (even at 12:30), NBC had to match that offer, including ownership of the 2 shows. That probably pushed them to finalize with Leno and not match CBS' offer.

So now Worldwide pants can negotiate directly with the WGA.

I guess NBC can do something similar, but it seems more difficult.

-smak-


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Story here



> Specifics of the WGA-UA agreement will be kept under wraps but will likely mirror the terms in the interim pact that guild inked last week with David Letterman's Worldwide Pants.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

Langree said:


> Story here


Divide and conquer. Interesting.
So they've got one TV deal set, and now one movie deal set. The movie deal is of much greater significance. Because now UA is in the position of being the only studio able to develop films for that release window (I don't know much about the timing, but I know that there's a significant time period between script writing/re-writing and release). The pressure within the AMPTP from competing studios is likely to start building pretty quickly. We'll see whether they're strong enough to drag the TV folks along for the ride.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I hope people see through this opportunistic tactic. Find a bunch of production companies that happen to be owned by union members and sympathizers, and get them to give the union whatever it wants.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

At this point I hope the WGA gets busted because they are run by a bunch of morons.


----------



## nrrhgreg (Aug 30, 2003)

Yeah, this isn't that big of a deal. UA has released 1 movie since they reformed in November '06. It does just further show that the WGA is a bunch of two-faced dirtbags for a not agreeing to the same exact deal with dick clark productions.


----------



## Aniketos (Mar 6, 2006)

I'm still supporting the writers.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Aniketos said:


> I'm still supporting the writers.


Does that mean you don't support the gaffers, caterers, make-up artists, stagehands, camera operators and all that? They're all out of work because of the writers...


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

I support the writers too, but I don't agree with the WGA's actions over the last few weeks.


----------



## Aniketos (Mar 6, 2006)

Amnesia said:


> Does that mean you don't support the gaffers, caterers, make-up artists, stagehands, camera operators and all that? They're all out of work because of the writers...


Yes, I hope they all die horrible deaths.

Your logic could go both ways, I could blame the studios for those people currently being out of work.

There are two sides in this fight, studios and writers. I still side with the writers, despite having a very lonely tivo.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Aniketos said:


> Your logic could go both ways, I could blame the studios for those people currently being out of work.


That wouldn't make any sense. It's the writers who walked out, hurting not only their "opponents" (the studios' stockholders), but everyone else in the entertainment industry.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> That wouldn't make any sense. It's the writers who walked out, hurting not only their "opponents" (the studios' stockholders), but everyone else in the entertainment industry.


...and it is the studios who gave an ultimatum and walked out, prolonging the hurt not only for their "opponents" (writers), but for everybody in the industry. The WGA certainly is not blameless here, but the strike is not going to get resolved without negotiation, and the side that refuses to talk certainly bears some responsibility for the extended duration.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The studios are likely willing to go back to work tomorrow, just under conditions that the writers are unwilling to accept.

I'm getting a little tired of this whole exercise of assigning blame; I'm seeing it now as nothing more than useless self-indulgence. It serves no useful purpose, except perhaps to boost one's own ego, by asserting someone's personal preferences (which you _like_) are more worth than someone else's (which you don't).

No one is violating any laws here; no one is actually violating any agreements. The two sides are simply not coming to agreement. It happens every day, in business; the only difference in this case is that lots of other people are affected -- however, those people are affected because they placed _reliance_ on agreements _to which they are not a party_ and generally have no significant influence or control over. That's always risky, and there is no reason for it to be less risky in this case.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Fassade said:


> ...and it is the studios who gave an ultimatum and walked out _(...)_


you forgot to add "of the negotiations".

By that time, the writers had already put the majority of the entertainment industry out of work.

There might be an argument that the studios have lengthened the strike, but it's the writers who put people out of work to begin with. And they did it to hurt the studios' stockholders, despite the fact that the real brunt of their action would be felt by innocent bystanders.


----------



## Martin Tupper (Dec 18, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> That wouldn't make any sense. It's the writers who walked out, hurting not only their "opponents" (the studios' stockholders), but everyone else in the entertainment industry.


The writers didn't walk out. Their old contract expired. Until both sides can agree upon the compensation package for future work, there won't be any future work.

And if you want to be pedantic about it, the production staff wasn't hurt by the writers' strike, it was hurt by the producers' decision to stop paying them during the writers' strike.

There is a strike because the two sides have been unable to reach an agreement.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Martin Tupper said:


> The writers didn't walk out. Their old contract expired. Until both sides can agree upon the compensation package for future work, there won't be any future work.


The writers most assuredly *did* walk out! What are you thinking?!? They had the option to continue to work under the old contract during negotiations.

The problem is that the union felt that the only "power" they had in order to put pressure on the studios was to shut down the studios...and the hell with the other workers caught in the crossfire.


Martin Tupper said:


> And if you want to be pedantic about it, the production staff wasn't hurt by the writers' strike, it was hurt by the producers' decision to stop paying them during the writers' strike.


By that same argument, they were hurt because Bill Gates didn't decide to pay them while they weren't working...maybe he's to blame.


Martin Tupper said:


> There is a strike because the two sides have been unable to reach an agreement.


No, there isn't a *contract* because the two sides haven't been able to agree. No contract doesn't have to mean a work stoppage. It was solely the writers' decision to walk out and take away the jobs of the entertainment industry staff.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)




----------



## Martin Tupper (Dec 18, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> The writers most assuredly *did* walk out! What are you thinking?!? They had the option to continue to work under the old contract during negotiations.


And the producers had the option of giving the writers everything they had asked for during negotiations. Did they not?

The old contract was cutting the writers out of some existing revenue streams. Even though that was unacceptable to them, they honored that contract to the very end.



Amnesia said:


> The problem is that the union felt that the only "power" they had in order to put pressure on the studios was to shut down the studios...and the hell with the other workers caught in the crossfire.


The only power the writers had was to stop writing. And that is precisely what they did.

The writers don't hold the keys to the production studios. The producers do. The producers decided to stop production.



Amnesia said:


> By that same argument, they were hurt because Bill Gates didn't decide to pay them while they weren't working...maybe he's to blame.


In order to stop paying someone, first you have to have been paying them. If you feel compelled to blame one side for the production staff's woes, the producers were the only people who made the decision to stop paying them.



Amnesia said:


> No, there isn't a *contract* because the two sides haven't been able to agree. No contract doesn't have to mean a work stoppage. It was solely the writers' decision to walk out and take away the jobs of the entertainment industry staff.


Working without a contract requires good faith. The producers shattered any such good faith when they decided to not honor the "spirit" of the old contract and give the writers the residuals for new distribution methods that they got from the old ones.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Martin Tupper said:


> The writers don't hold the keys to the production studios. The producers do. The producers decided to stop production.


No, they continued production until they ran out of scripts. Then there was no work for the actors, make-up artists, gaffers, etc.



Martin Tupper said:


> Working without a contract requires good faith.


They could have continuted to work under the terms of the old contract during negotiations---I'm not suggesting that they work without getting paid. They instead chose to walk out.

That's all I'm saying---that the writers decided to walk out; I don't see how you can possibly dispute that.

...and the consequences of the writers' walkout is being felt not only by their intended target (the studios' shareholders), but also by everyone else in the entertainment industry that was put out of work.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

How many scripts are floating around Hollywood? If the studios don't want to work with the union, can't they just hire other people?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Philosofy said:


> How many scripts are floating around Hollywood? If the studios don't want to work with the union, can't they just hire other people?


Well, first there's getting past the writers desire to be in the union and thus not wanting to enter into a deal that essential makes them a scab and unlikely to be able to become a union member later.

Second even if the studio used non-union labor, there's a conspiracy among unions, so other unions might refuse to work with the production because they used scab writers.

What they need to do is just go offshore... Canada, Australia, UK, South Africa... English speaking areas with their own film industries... as long as the US Unions don't manage to work out a way to get cross agreements with unions in those places.


----------



## Martin Tupper (Dec 18, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> No, they continued production until they ran out of scripts. Then there was no work for the actors, make-up artists, gaffers, etc.


And as producers, it's there _job _to assemble _all_ of the necessary components of the production...including scripts. Their refusal to negotiate a writers' compensation from current revenue streams, that was in keeping with the previous compensation from more traditional revenue streams helped lead to the work stoppage.

It isn't as though there was some sort of progress being made in the negotiations and a resolution was just a matter of time. There was no light at the end of that tunnel; no good faith effort being made; nothing that warranted any continuation of the existing contract.

The producers were using the letter of the law of the old contract to deny the writers compensation. The writers begrudgingly honored that contract to the bitter end. But don't begrudge them for refusing to accept it a moment longer than they had to.



Amnesia said:


> They could have continuted to work under the terms of the old contract during negotiations---I'm not suggesting that they work without getting paid. They instead chose to walk out.


The terms of there old contract didn't cover the ever-increasing revenues from online sales and viewings of their work. They weren't getting paid for those. Rather than deal in good faith, to find a way to pay writers a similar "cut" of online sales, the producers were using the old contract as an excuse NOT to pay the writers anything. Although their existing contract was designed to compensate the writers based on future revenues, the producers refused to pay them a nickel from _these particular_ revenue streams, because the old contract didn't cover them. And you don't understand why the writers refused to continue to honor that contract any longer than they had to?



Amnesia said:


> That's all I'm saying---that the writers decided to walk out; I don't see how you can possibly dispute that.


What exactly did they walk out of? They had a contract of write scripts up until two months ago. They wrote scripts up until two months ago.

They currently have no contract to deliver scripts. They currently are not delivering scripts.

If the producers want scripts, they need to negotiate a new contract. But the producers aren't negotiating a new contract. So there aren't any scripts and production has come to a halt.



Amnesia said:


> ...and the consequences of the writers' walkout is being felt not only by their intended target (the studios' shareholders), but also by everyone else in the entertainment industry that was put out of work.


The writer's strike is a result of both sides failing to reach an agreement. PERIOD.

For everyone who argues one side is to blame, someone else can argue the other side is to blame. Both sides are to blame!


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Martin Tupper said:


> The writer's strike is a result of both sides failing to reach an agreement. PERIOD. _(...)_ Both sides are to blame!


The breakdown of negotiations was a result of both sides failing to reach an agreement. Both sides are to blame.

However, the writer's strike was the writers' decision. PERIOD.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Or neither side is to blame. Again, what's this obsession with blame? Why must there always be some?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

bicker said:


> Or neither side is to blame. Again, what's this obsession with blame? Why must there always be some?


When is an accident not an accident?

When it happens in the United States. There, it's ALWAYS someone's fault.


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

Nevermind.

Edited my previous post.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

dswallow said:


> What they need to do is just go offshore... Canada, Australia, UK, South Africa... English speaking areas with their own film industries... as long as the US Unions don't manage to work out a way to get cross agreements with unions in those places.


I was thinking this today. I am surprised it has not already happened. Canada, Australia, UK and the rest. They should be pulling product from these areas asap.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

bicker said:


> The studios are likely willing to go back to work tomorrow, just under conditions that the writers are unwilling to accept.


Or in the case of the Golden Globes under conditions that the WGA wholly wants across the board.

Yet oddly won't allow.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

marksman said:


> Or in the case of the Golden Globes under conditions that the WGA wholly wants across the board.
> 
> Yet oddly won't allow.


This is becoming rather tiresome.

This issue has been explained to your rather thoroughly by more than one person (myself included). You are either truly clueless, or just playing at it without a competent writer to assist you. What is it, you got your big chance to be a seat warmer at the Golden Globes, and now that all the seats are going to be empty you're going to miss your big chance?


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> They could have continuted to work under the terms of the old contract during negotiations---I'm not suggesting that they work without getting paid. They instead chose to walk out.
> 
> That's all I'm saying---that the writers decided to walk out; I don't see how you can possibly dispute that.


Continuing to work while negotiating with people who won't negotiate doesn't really help your cause. If there is some kind of breakthru leading up to the end of the contract, that's when you may continue to work without a contract.

If there's no breakthru, how long would you want them to work after their contract is up, without a new contract? 2 weeks? 2 months? 10 years?

The time to negotiate a contract is before it's up. I don't think both sides did nothing until the day the contract was over, and then the writers went on strike.

-smak-


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

AJRitz said:


> This is becoming rather tiresome.
> 
> This issue has been explained to your rather thoroughly by more than one person (myself included). You are either truly clueless, or just playing at it without a competent writer to assist you. What is it, you got your big chance to be a seat warmer at the Golden Globes, and now that all the seats are going to be empty you're going to miss your big chance?


As for me, I just don't agree with your assesment of the situation, the statements from the WGA leadership and their recent actions contradict each other, in my view.

Like I said previously, I support the writers, but don't agree with the recent union handling of facets of the strike.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

nrrhgreg said:


> Yeah, this isn't that big of a deal. UA has released 1 movie since they reformed in November '06. It does just further show that the WGA is a bunch of two-faced dirtbags for a not agreeing to the same exact deal with dick clark productions.


Yah, the WGA are a bunch of two-faced dirtbags 

You've nailed it exactly. 

Man, people, get a clue.

-smak-


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Langree said:


> As for me, I just don't agree with your assesment of the situation, the statements from the WGA leadership and their recent actions contradict each other, in my view.
> 
> Like I said previously, I support the writers, but don't agree with the recent union handling of facets of the strike.


The only ways strikes work is you hurt the other side financially.

If the other side is never hurt financially, they you can't win.

Making deals with production companies that earn your members nothing, but help the other side is not good for the cause.

Sorry, that's just the way it is, it's a dirty business.

-smak-


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

smak said:


> The only ways strikes work is you hurt the other side financially.
> 
> If the other side is never hurt financially, they you can't win.
> 
> ...


But in cutting a deal with WWP they most certainly are helping CBS, not just Letterman's Company.


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

smak said:


> The time to negotiate a contract is before it's up. I don't think both sides did nothing until the day the contract was over, and then the writers went on strike.


From what I remember reading is that contract negotiations started much later then they normally do when the writers contract is about to expire. I cannot find my original source but I believe that the WGA striking was a forgone conclusion due to how late the WGA came to the bargaining table.


----------



## Martin Tupper (Dec 18, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> The breakdown of negotiations was a result of both sides failing to reach an agreement. Both sides are to blame.
> 
> However, the writer's strike was the writers' decision. PERIOD.


Since you did not attempt to respond to the bulk of my post explaining why the writers wouldn't/shouldn't have continued using the old contract, I can only assume you agree.

The writers don't have a contract. That's why they aren't writing. They don't have a contract because the two sides have failed to reach an agreement.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Martin Tupper said:


> Since you did not attempt to respond to the bulk of my post explaining why the writers wouldn't/shouldn't have continued using the old contract, I can only assume you agree.


Nope, it just seemed to me as though further discussion wouldn't make you see reason.

Take the WWP deal. My understanding is that one provision in the deal is that if the major studios end up negotiating a better deal with the WGA than the one WWP got, then WWP would get that too.

So why didn't the entire WGA do something like that? Make an interim deal with the AMPTP that they would work under the provisions of their old contract and, assuming that their new contract was more advantageous to the writers, have it apply retroactively to the period after the old contract ended?

The answer is simple: The only way for the WGA to put pressure on the studios was to use the "nuclear option"--shut down production and try to hit the studios' stockholders in their pocketbooks. But just with with any nuclear option, it's difficult to target just your "opponents"--innocent bystanders get affected too. In this case, not only did the innocent bystanders get affected, but I believe that they were hurt far worse than any studio stockholder. After all, most studio stockholders have other sources of income...but the caterers, make-up artists, actors, lighting guys, etc are now unemployed and without income.

Has the WGA issued a statement apologizing to these people? Have they offered some sort of monetary compensation?


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

When the WGA struck, they chose their contract needs above putting others out of work. When the AMPTP left negotiations to wait out the WGA, they also chose their own contract needs above getting those people back to work. I am not going to argue the writers are innocent here, because they are not. I do, however, reject the notion the AMPTP bears no culpability. Everybody has been more willing to blame the side they disagree with, when the reality is that neither can claim to be on the side of the below-the-line workers; both are playing hardball, and the other workers are getting caught.



Amnesia said:


> Has the WGA issued a statement apologizing to these people? Have they offered some sort of monetary compensation?


Yes, primarily through donations to the WG Foundation.

Regardless of which side you blame the most, if anybody feels strongly about the below-the-line workers, I would suggest contacting the Fund. It does appear involved with the WGA, but WGA members are specifically ineligible to receive aid. Donations are tax-deductible.

I am pretty sure I read that one production company has set up a similar fund, though for the life of me I cannot find the URL this morning. If anybody can find the URL, I would be happy to edit the post and put the two side-by-side. As long as the two sides cannot come to terms, it really matters much less which side gets credit for providing assistance than that the assistance is given.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> The answer is simple: The only way for the WGA to put pressure on the studios was to use the "nuclear option"--shut down production and try to hit the studios' stockholders in their pocketbooks. But just with with any nuclear option, it's difficult to target just your "opponents"--innocent bystanders get affected too. In this case, not only did the innocent bystanders get affected, but I believe that they were hurt far worse than any studio stockholder. After all, most studio stockholders have other sources of income...but the caterers, make-up artists, actors, lighting guys, etc are now unemployed and without income.
> 
> Has the WGA issued a statement apologizing to these people? Have they offered some sort of monetary compensation?


You aren't really complaining about the WGA, you just don't think people should be allowed to strike.

Major league sports have had both strikes and lockouts. During those times, who is hurt the most? The players? The owners? Or is it the people who work at stadiums, the parking lot attendants, the hot dog vendors, the ticket takers.

All strikes or lockouts have unintended consequences.

But guess what. The "little people" also have gone on strikes that have effected everybody. Hotel workers, grocery workers.

I had to drive a whole extra 6 miles to find a grocery store when we had the grocery store strike a few years back.

I was thinking of resorting to physical violence because of that extra 6 miles, but I thought better of it 

-smak-


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

smak said:


> You aren't really complaining about the WGA, you just don't think people should be allowed to strike.


No, people should be allowed to strike---I just think it's a bad thing to do.

Now, I don't think that unions should be allowed to have closed shops, nor do I think that picket lines or strikers should be allowed to disrupt free traffic to businesses...


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> No, people should be allowed to strike---I just think it's a bad thing to do.
> 
> Now, I don't think that unions should be allowed to have closed shops, nor do I think that picket lines or strikers should be allowed to disrupt free traffic to businesses...


So, by "strike" you really mean "quit their jobs".

/Still supporting the WGA. Screw the Globes.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Royster said:


> So, by "strike" you really mean "quit their jobs".


What are you talking about?


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> No, people should be allowed to strike---I just think it's a bad thing to do.
> 
> Now, I don't think that unions should be allowed to have closed shops, nor do I think that picket lines or strikers should be allowed to disrupt free traffic to businesses...





Royster said:


> So, by "strike" you really mean "quit their jobs".
> 
> /Still supporting the WGA. Screw the Globes.





Amnesia said:


> What are you talking about?


Because if you can't have closed shops, then "strike" = "quit".

This is really what having a single recognized bargaining agent is all about. It's the only thing that keeps striking employees in any field from simply being replaced. Writers at least have unique enough skills that it's very difficult to replaced them all at once, so they still have a bit of leverage.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

No, you choose to make that inference, when it isn't necessarily the case. Many unions operate without closed shops, and they surely don't have the power to shut down a whole industry; they can just hamstring (and not even shut down) that one employer within the industry. That's all unions should ever be allowed to do.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

AJRitz said:


> Because if you can't have closed shops, then "strike" = "quit".
> 
> This is really what having a single recognized bargaining agent is all about. It's the only thing that keeps striking employees in any field from simply being replaced. Writers at least have unique enough skills that it's very difficult to replaced them all at once, so they still have a bit of leverage.


No, that is not what a closed shop is. A closed shop is an organization where workers are required to be in a Union before they can be hired. For all practical purposes, closed shops were made illegal by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, yet there have been many many strikes in open shops since then.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

From what I've read, portions of the entertainment industry enjoy an unfair advantage, in that they *are *allowed closed shops. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion, I believe.

I think beyond banning closed shops, I believe the NLRA should also ban coordinated strikes, where workers working for more than one company strike them all at once. Unions should be limited to working with individual employers for contracts for each.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

United Artists have struck a deal with the writers union. UA is not a member of the Alliance of Motion Pictures and Television Producers. UA is owned in part by Tom Cruise.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

bicker said:


> From what I've read, portions of the entertainment industry enjoy an unfair advantage, in that they *are *allowed closed shops. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion, I believe.


I have seen several references that agree with you, but I am not familiar with the source of the exception that would get this industry around this prohibition. Whether its an unfair advantage is another issue. I guess my question is to whom you think it unfair. I think it to be unfair to potential workers who wish to work but would not otherwise join the union. I don't necessarily see it as unfair to the employer, or to other industries.



bicker said:


> I think beyond banning closed shops, I believe the NLRA should also ban coordinated strikes, where workers working for more than one company strike them all at once. Unions should be limited to working with individual employers for contracts for each.


I agree that they should ban closed shops, due to the prejudice to the employee that wishes to work but does not wish to join the union. As far as coordinated strikes, there are limitations on the actions of organized labor, but I can't recall all of the detail. There is a limitation on cross striking, but there is nothing that says that union members can't honor picket lines at another employer.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

PPC1 said:


> I
> I agree that they should ban closed shops, due to the prejudice to the employee that wishes to work but does not wish to join the union. As far as coordinated strikes, there are limitations on the actions of organized labor, but I can't recall all of the detail. There is a limitation on cross striking, but there is nothing that says that union members can't honor picket lines at another employer.


Closed shops are banned. I'm guessing that they are actually union shops, which require employees to join the union within a set time period after becoming employed.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> Closed shops are banned. I'm guessing that they are actually union shops, which require employees to join the union within a set time period after becoming employed.


Then what's the difference? If you're required to be a union member to work there, whether on day one or day thirty, isn't the result still the same?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Then what's the difference? If you're required to be a union member to work there, whether on day one or day thirty, isn't the result still the same?


It's mostly semantics, though there is a difference between only being able to hire union members and being able to hire anyone, who then must join the union. It basically means the union can't deny membership and thus deny you the job.

Then there's also the provision for not joining the union but paying the equivalent dues, or a portion thereof that is for representation (as opposed to the union's political activities, etc.).

For most of our discussions here, there's really no difference.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

TAsunder said:


> Closed shops are banned.


That was my understanding, at least in states that have enacted right to work statutes that prohibit closed shops. I know California is one such state.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

dswallow said:


> Then there's also the provision for not joining the union but paying the equivalent dues, or a portion thereof that is for representation (as opposed to the union's political activities, etc.).
> 
> For most of our discussions here, there's really no difference.


This, I think, is the real answer.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

PPC1 said:


> That was my understanding, at least in states that have enacted right to work statutes that prohibit closed shops. I know California is one such state.


I'll step up here and apologize for my misstatement. I was, in fact, referring to "union shops" as opposed to "closed shops". As Doug notes, it's an easy misstatement to make, as there's very little practical difference.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

AJRitz said:


> Because if you can't have closed shops, then "strike" = "quit".





AJRitz said:


> I'll step up here and apologize for my misstatement. I was, in fact, referring to "union shops" as opposed to "closed shops".


So you're saying that if it's a "union shop" (can we just use "closed shop" for clarity?), then "strike = quit"?

Not at all. If you don't like the working conditions or other policies of a place, you're free to strike. (In fact, you often see people with picket lines in protest at places where they don't even work.)

And your employer is free to fire you if you don't come in to work.

And if someone else is willing to do the job for what the employer is offering, then that person will be hired.

What's wrong with any of that? It all seems perfectly reasonable to me.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> So you're saying that if it's a "union shop" (can we just use "closed shop" for clarity?), then "strike = quit"?
> 
> Not at all. If you don't like the working conditions or other policies of a place, you're free to strike. (In fact, you often see people with picket lines in protest at places where they don't even work.)
> 
> ...


What's wrong with it is that the NLRA was enacted precisely to protect workers from being forced to accept the whim of employers with regard to pay and working conditions. What many folks here are forgetting is that the NLRA was put in place in an effort to level the playing field between employees and employers with regard to bargaining over the terms and conditions of employment. That what it is SUPPOSED to do. This whole idea that employers can do whatever they please to employees, and employees can just choose to work somewhere else if they don't like it, is completely antithetical to pretty much an entire chapter of the U.S. Code.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

AJRitz said:


> What many folks here are forgetting is that the NLRA was put in place in an effort to level the playing field between employees and employers with regard to bargaining over the terms and conditions of employment.


I'm not forgetting...I just don't care. I was talking about right and wrong, not "in accordance with the NLRA and not in accordance with the NLRA".


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

PPC1 said:


> I guess my question is to whom you think it unfair.


To other potential employees, and to employers.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

PPC1 said:


> I have seen several references that agree with you, but I am not familiar with the source of the exception that would get this industry around this prohibition.


I found it... it isn't a closed shop, actually, rather, "For the entertainment industry, unions representing performers have as their first rule one banning any represented performer from working on any non-union production. Penalties are imposed on the union member, not on the employer, and can lead to loss of union membership." [Source: Wikipedia.] That last sentence is how they get away with it.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

smak said:


> Yah, the WGA are a bunch of two-faced dirtbags
> 
> You've nailed it exactly.
> 
> ...


I don't know how else you could characterize them at this point.


----------



## rondotcom (Feb 13, 2005)

marksman said:


> I don't know how else you could characterize them at this point.


I believe the previous poster called them two-faced scumbags. Yup. Demanding payment for work being effectively stolen by somebody else. If that ain't a scumbag I dunno what is


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

marksman said:


> I don't know how else you could characterize them at this point.


And the producer's who lied about not knowing how much they'd be making from internet showings are what then?

-smak-


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

bicker said:


> I found it... it isn't a closed shop, actually, rather, "For the entertainment industry, unions representing performers have as their first rule one banning any represented performer from working on any non-union production. Penalties are imposed on the union member, not on the employer, and can lead to loss of union membership." [Source: Wikipedia.] That last sentence is how they get away with it.


Maybe they should all form a new union and strike against their current unions until they are allowed to work non-union jobs.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

BitbyBlit said:


> Maybe they should all form a new union and strike against their current unions until they are allowed to work non-union jobs.


If they want to, they are free to do so. It's called a decertification election. If the members choose to dissolve the union, the union contract is no longer binding and individuals can make their own deals with producers. The WGA rank and file is overwhelmingly supportive of this strike. They have expressed no interest in decertifying. Therefore, legally, the producers HAVE to deal with the union.

Amnesia can drone on about his owners' paradise all he wants, but the NLRA framework will govern this dispute, and the AMPTP isn't going to get what it wants by running and hiding instead of negotiating.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

AJRitz said:


> Amnesia can drone on about his owners' paradise all he wants _(...)_


"Owner's paradise"?!?! No, actually it's a individual's paradise that I support.

I'm a strong believer in individual choice and a free market. If a writer is content to work under the existing deal offered by the producers, then they should be free to do so. The union prevents that.

Similarly, the producers cannot find the quality of writers that they want by offering a particular compensation package, they should be free to offer another (to individuals, not collectively to everyone.) Also, different production companies should feel free to offer different compensation to different people.

A free market is the best solution for both employers and employees.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> "Owner's paradise"?!?! No, actually it's a individual's paradise that I support.
> 
> I'm a strong believer in individual choice and a free market. If a writer is content to work under the existing deal offered by the producers, then they should be free to do so. The union prevents that.
> 
> ...


Nicely said Amnesia. :up:


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

AJRitz said:


> Amnesia can drone on about his owners' paradise all he wants, but the NLRA framework will govern this dispute, and the AMPTP isn't going to get what it wants by running and hiding instead of negotiating.


And the WGA isn't going to get what it wants by being opportunistic in trying to increase its own power by getting animation and reality tv writers.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> I'm a strong believer in individual choice and a free market. If a writer is content to work under the existing deal offered by the producers, then they should be free to do so. The union prevents that.


S/He was free to not join the union in the first place and agree to the contract that made this so. Any other limitation on freedom was entered into knowingly and with forethought.


----------



## Combat Medic (Sep 6, 2001)

mrmike said:


> S/He was free to not join the union in the first place and agree to the contract that made this so. Any other limitation on freedom was entered into knowingly and with forethought.


But, without being a member then they can't work. They are all agreeing to this conttract under duress.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

mrmike said:


> S/He was free to not join the union in the first place and agree to the contract that made this so. Any other limitation on freedom was entered into knowingly and with forethought.


So you're saying the choice is between joining the union and not writing in Hollywood? Some choice.

Wouldn't it be better to allow people the choice of whether or not they want to join the union? Or whether or not they want to accept a particular compensation package? (I hope you don't think that there's not a single writer in Hollywood who would rather be working under the old contract than being out of work.)


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> So you're saying the choice is between joining the union and not writing in Hollywood? Some choice.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to allow people the choice of whether or not they want to join the union? Or whether or not they want to accept a particular compensation package? (I hope you don't think that there's not a single writer in Hollywood who would rather be working under the old contract than being out of work.)





Combat Medic said:


> But, without being a member then they can't work. They are all agreeing to this conttract under duress.


You don't have to belong to the union to write for TV, stage, or movies. There are non-union productions.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

AJRitz said:


> the AMPTP isn't going to get what it wants by running and hiding instead of negotiating.


They may get much of what they want by simply waiting the writers out.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

mrmike said:


> You don't have to belong to the union to write for TV, stage, or movies. There are non-union productions.


What percentage of the top 30 scripted television series are non-union productions?

Oh, you meant that people have to belong to the union only to write for the television productions _*that pay well*_.

Folks who don't wish to join the union should be afforded *comparable* opportunities.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

bicker said:


> What percentage of the top 30 scripted television series are non-union productions?
> 
> Oh, you meant that people have to belong to the union only to write for the television productions _*that pay well*_.
> 
> Folks who don't wish to join the union should be afforded *comparable* opportunities.


Somehow the comparable opportunities don't seem to matter to folks when big business is the one holding jobs hostage.

This is a decidedly non-free-market argument. I don't necessarily disagree, but it doesn't follow from the previous arguments.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Actually, I believe in a truly free market, without the interference caused by the union forcing its members to only work on all-union productions, comparable opportunities would be the rule rather than the exception.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

AJRitz said:


> This whole idea that employers can do whatever they please to employees, and employees can just choose to work somewhere else if they don't like it, is completely antithetical to pretty much an entire chapter of the U.S. Code.


It's also antithetical to any functional economy in the entire world. But that doesn't seem to stop the proponents of it.

One thing I hate about how unions run here in the US is the monopoly on labor they create in some markets, like in Hollywood. You shouldn't have to be forced to be in a union to be able to work, any more than you should have to be forced to be non-union.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> I'm a strong believer in individual choice and a free market.


And I believe the "free market" is pretty much a crock. The goal of all of the participants is to get into a position where they can economically exploit others with impunity. Too many succeed.

Unions just level the playing field.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

MickeS said:


> It's also antithetical to any functional economy in the entire world. But that doesn't seem to stop the proponents of it.


Actually, every non-third-world economy in the world outside of Asia provides strong protection for unions. The only reason that the Asian countries tend not to is because of their own long traditions of companies providing real benefits and job security to employees even though they weren't required to. I suspect that we'll start seeing more movement toward greater support for unions in Asia too, as they adopt a more American, cut-throat, business culture.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Royster said:


> And I believe the "free market" is pretty much a crock. The goal of all of the participants is to get into a position where they can economically exploit others with impunity. Too many succeed.


Are you saying you're a socialist?

Pretty much all non-union (, non-government) business in the country operates through the free market. You utilize the same concepts every time you make a purchasing decision. Do you want to buy this product for X dollars or that product for Y dollars? Do you want to hire this plumber for N dollars or that plumber for M dollars?

You weigh the benefits vs. the costs and make the best decision based on your requirements, budget, etc.

Are you seriously suggesting that you want to do away with all of that? You'd rather be told who you can hire and what you are going to be forced to pay? You want to be told what you can buy and what price you'd be forced to pay? That's what you're advocating if you want to do away with the free market...


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Royster said:


> And I believe the "free market" is pretty much a crock. The goal of all of the participants is to get into a position where they can economically exploit others with impunity. Too many succeed.


The only way to succeed in a free market is to offer something for which another person is voluntarily willing to pay. There is no coerscion. A person is only as exploited as his options for other people to whom he can sell what he sells. Contrast this with non-free systems, where governments simply extract resources by force and distribute them in a way they like better.



Royster said:


> Unions just level the playing field.


This, I agree with. For the people who think unions shouldn't exist, what is the difference between a union and a corporation (excluding from the discussion corporations where 100% of the shares are owned by a single individual)? They're both voluntary associations of individuals who pool their resources together to obtain an advantage in the marketplace. One group has capital as a resource, the other group labor. Otherwise, what's the difference?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mrmike said:


> You don't have to belong to the union to write for TV, stage, or movies. There are non-union productions.


Name some.

That we've heard of.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Name some.
> 
> That we've heard of.


Hmm. Most touring companies of Broadway shows. Nearly all off-Broadway plays (I don't know of one that's a union shop). Any of the 40-50K community theatre productions in the US every year. True, most of America digests what the big production houses feed them like so many geese en gavage, but not everything written filmed and acted is at your local multiplex or on your dish.

Much of the Video and Film production in Vancouver is non-union. Industrial and documentary work tends to be non-union, as does a lot of voice acting work. Computer gaming studios aren't union (yet).


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

There was an interesting article in the Calendar section of the LA Times about how SAG will really make this strike work.

The fact the actors dropped out of the Golden Globes is just the first shot. Wait unitil closer to Oscar Night to see if anyone caves.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

mrmike said:


> Hmm. Most touring companies of Broadway shows. Nearly all off-Broadway plays (I don't know of one that's a union shop). Any of the 40-50K community theatre productions in the US every year.


Actually, there are hundreds if not thousands of professional theatres across the country that have agreements with Actor's Equity. Not every actor in each production will be a union member, but they have various agreements specifying how many actors/stage mangers will be members of the union in each production.

As far as "Off Broadway" goes, I am not sure how you are using that term. If you mean in the technical sense, the Mitzi Newhaus and the Vivian Beaumant are each in the 350 +/- range and I am pretty sure both are union. Of course, they are both part of Lincoln Center.

I am not sure "community theatre" counts since those actors are amatures.

That being said, I don't think that alters the gist of what you are saying.

Here is an intersting link that touches on the issue:
http://www.allbusiness.com/services/amusement-recreation-services/4593064-1.html


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I'll ask my question again: Please list which of the top 30 scripted television shows are non-union productions.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com
"Writers Guild president Patric Verrone is going on air telling radio and TV media today that the union will go after member Jay Leno for writing his own monologues."

I hope he goes Fi-Core!


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> "Owner's paradise"?!?! No, actually it's a individual's paradise that I support.


But what if the individuals decide it would be a better "paradise" if they joined together? 
It's too bad you can't go back in time before unions existed. I don't think a lot of individuals thought they were in paradise. The Union movement came about for a reason. 
Labor is part of the market. In a free market they should be free to join together. But should they force others to join them? That's for them to decide, not you or me. You may not agree with their decision, but if you force them into not being able to do it, where's the freedom?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

jamesbobo said:


> In a free market they should be free to join together. But should they force others to join them? That's for them to decide, not you or me. You may not agree with their decision, but if you force them into not being able to do it, where's the freedom?


Please read what you just wrote.

It seems like you're saying that true freedom is allowing gangs to force their views on others.

Is that what you really mean?


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> Please read what you just wrote.
> 
> It seems like you're saying that true freedom is allowing gangs to force their views on others.
> 
> Is that what you really mean?


If you forbid Unions to be closed shops, aren't you forcing your views on them? Actually, I don't accept your question. Police force you to obey the law. Are you saying the police are gangs?

True freedom? It doesn't exist. Just as right and wrong doesn't exist. It's only a concept. All we'll be doing is arguing in circles.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

jamesbobo said:


> If you forbid Unions to be closed shops, aren't you forcing your views on them?


Like if I forbid Nazis from killing people, I'm trying to force my views on them?

No, just because an organization is comprised of individuals doesn't mean that their views trump individual rights. If a person wants to work at a company and the company wants to hire them, no group should be allowed to decide that they don't like the person and try to prevent him or her from being hired.

What if a person had to join the Nazi party in order to work at a particular company? Wouldn't you think that was bad? Why is it suddenly OK if you force them to pay money to a union instead for the "right" to work there?

Now, I'm not saying that unions are as bad as Nazis (well, not quite), I'm just using an extreme example to show how group desires can't supersede individual rights.

So once again: individuals have right, not groups. Individuals are free to form groups. But just like it's wrong for one person to try to interfere with another individual's rights, it's also wrong for an organization to try to interfere with an individual's rights.


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

I was contemplating something interesting this morning. When the strike ends and everyone is back at work I am wondering how positive a work environment I will be. And I am not talking about Producers vs Writers. I am talking about the Below the Line Employees vs. Producers and Writers. If I was a cameraman who had been out of work for months because of the Producers and Writers and am now back at work i would be thankful that I am back at work. But I would be quite resentful that these two groups may have cost me my marriage, house, financial stability, and put me in a hole so deep it will take about a year or more to crawl out of.

If I screw up and lose my job or something to that nature I can handle it. I will take responsibility for my actions. But if the actions of other individuals causes me to lose my income I am far less forgiving.

What do you guys think?


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

If you kill the Nazis, you are forcing your views on them.

Once again groups, as individuals, have rights.

See, I told you we would argue in circles. So I'll argue no more.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> I'll ask my question again: Please list which of the top 30 scripted television shows are non-union productions.


When you narrow the focus to that degree, there is somewhat of a chicken-and-the-egg problem. I would be at least as surprised as you if any of those 30 shows are non-union WGA/SAG/DGA. However, I would be equally shocked if any of them were produced by non-AMPTP members. (As an aside, I would be absolutely floored if any of them were not distributed through one of 4 networks, except for one-shots like High School Musical 2.) When you restrict the discussion to large scale television production, there are at least three separate chokeholds on the process -- well, 5, if you count each union separately. You could just as easily ask "please list which of the top 30 scripted television shows are non-AMPTP productions", because the answer would correlate 100%.

Since they both correlate, which is the ultimate cause? Are no (or few) top TV shows non-union because you cannot run a big budget program without union labor, or are no top shows non-union because you cannot make and sell a big budget program without the resources of an AMPTP production house, all of whom happen to be long-term signatories to the unions? Or is it the big 4 networks, who without fail listen to projects from AMPTP members (and, implicitly, the unions) first when gathering ideas for their upcoming schedules?

In the geography under union rules, unions have a near-monopoly on specific labor pools, but in that same region the AMPTP productions houses have just a strong of a hold on production. (Granted, they constitute an oligopoly, not a monopoly, but an oligopoly whose whose collusion directly contributed to the various unions' certifications in the first place.) If the unions pose an undue burden on a given production company, all it would have to do is decline to sign the union contract, and set up shop outside of union jurisdiction. That production house would have to cultivate new or fi-core talent, but, if the union rules are that damaging, that house would have a significant competitive advantage. One other poster mentioned Vancouver -- it is always fun to see Vancouver stand in for Chicago or New York, and I assume union rules are why -- but for some reason, production houses use this strategy for films from time to time, but rarely, if ever, for scripted TV programming.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> Like if I forbid Nazis from killing people, I'm trying to force my views on them?
> 
> No, just because an organization is comprised of individuals doesn't mean that their views trump individual rights. If a person wants to work at a company and the company wants to hire them, no group should be allowed to decide that they don't like the person and try to prevent him or her from being hired.
> 
> ...


Seriously?

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

jamesbobo said:


> Once again groups, as individuals, have rights.


What do you mean "group as individuals"?!? Those are opposite terms!

Individuals have rights. The individuals in groups have rights. The groups themselves do not.



Peter000 said:


> Seriously?


Seriously. Are you saying that groups should be allowed to violate individual rights? That it's wrong for an individual to stop someone from getting a certain job but if all of a sudden it's a group that wants to some someone from getting a job it's OK?


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

Peter000 said:


> Seriously?
> 
> Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.


I actually understood exactly what Amnesia was saying and thought it was well thought out. Your response on the other hand... not so much.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Seriously. Are you saying that groups should be allowed to violate individual rights? That it's wrong for an individual to stop someone from getting a certain job but if all of a sudden it's a group that wants to some someone from getting a job it's OK?


I am not clear on what you are saying. Individuals should have the right to bargain collectively. That's what unions do and that's what corporations do. When they bargain collectively they have the right to put whatever they want in the contract as long as both groups agree to it. Part of that contract can say that the employer can only hire members of the union. 
What is wrong with that? An individual looking for a job then has the right to join the union or look for a different job. That's no different than saying if an employee doesn't like what the employer is offering they can go elsewhere.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

bigpuma said:


> What is wrong with that? An individual looking for a job then has the right to join the union or look for a different job. That's no different than saying if an employee doesn't like what the employer is offering they can go elsewhere.


"What's wrong with that"? It's legalized extortion.

If you wanted to get a job and this big guy came over to you and said that you could only get the job if you paid him $50/mth, you would think that's wrong, wouldn't you?

Why is it any different if instead of one guy coming with his hand out, it's a whole group of people?


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

Fassade said:


> Yes, primarily through donations to the WG Foundation.


Which means the WGA has no strike fund for others and is depending on John Q public to foot the bill? Excuse me? Sorry, that's whack.


----------



## Martin Tupper (Dec 18, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Like if I forbid Nazis from killing people, I'm trying to force my views on them?
> 
> No, just because an organization is comprised of individuals doesn't mean that their views trump individual rights. If a person wants to work at a company and the company wants to hire them, no group should be allowed to decide that they don't like the person and try to prevent him or her from being hired.
> 
> ...


BZZZT!!! _Flagrant _Godwin's Law violation. You lose.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> "What's wrong with that"? It's legalized extortion.
> 
> If you wanted to get a job and this big guy came over to you and said that you could only get the job if you paid him $50/mth, you would think that's wrong, wouldn't you?
> 
> Why is it any different if instead of one guy coming with his hand out, it's a whole group of people?


I don't get it Amnesia, on one hand you are ok with a free market but now you are against it? Please explain. Why is it ok for individuals to join together to give themselves a stronger negotiating position by forming a corporation but it is not ok to unionize?


----------



## Martin Tupper (Dec 18, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> "What's wrong with that"? It's legalized extortion.
> 
> If you wanted to get a job and this big guy came over to you and said that you could only get the job if you paid him $50/mth, you would think that's wrong, wouldn't you?


It depends on what services he is providing for that $50/mo. If his job is to negotiate hiring/firing practices, working conditions, compensation, and benefits for his clients (and possibly provide them with ancillary services like legal counsel), then 'no' that isn't extortion. That is the cost of his services as an "agent". If he has negotiated an exclusive deal with a company, then you will have to deal with him if you wish to work there.


----------



## Martin Tupper (Dec 18, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Like if I forbid Nazis from killing people, I'm trying to force my views on them?
> 
> No, just because an organization is comprised of individuals doesn't mean that their views trump individual rights. If a person wants to work at a company and the company wants to hire them, no group should be allowed to decide that they don't like the person and try to prevent him or her from being hired.
> 
> ...


What is wrong with an employee telling his employer "If you hire that guy, I walk"? What is wrong with two employees saying that? Three? More? Do they not have the right to threaten to leave if someone they do not approve of is hired?

So what is wrong when those same employees give a representative the authority to negotiate such matters on their behalf?


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Which means the WGA has no strike fund for others and is depending on John Q public to foot the bill? Excuse me? Sorry, that's whack.


No union has a strike fund set up to pay the ancillary costs of their strike. Union strike funds are intended to help defray the costs of their own members during a strike, to help convince the members to continue to the strike to a beneficial conclusion, rather than giving up because the cookie jar is empty.

Frankly, setting up the WG fund (to which WGA members are precluded from applying) to provide financial assistance to ancillary workers affected by the WGA strike is virtually unique. I know of no other union that has ever created a mechanism by which non-members can be compensated for losses ocassioned by a strike. The Teamsters didn't provide a fund to pay security guards who had nothing to guard when the Teamster warehouse workers went on strike. The grocery employees union didn't provide financial support for food distribution workers whose customers were no longer ordering food.

The WGA (and some of it's members, most notably George Clooney) have done as much or more to support ancillary employees who are suffering losses due to the strike than those employees actual employer - the producers.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Which means the WGA has no strike fund for others and is depending on John Q public to foot the bill? Excuse me? Sorry, that's whack.


Er, no...i means that the writers set up a fund explicitly separate from the guild, and for which they are specifically ineligible to receive benefits, so anybody -- inside or outside the guild -- could help out without also helping the guild's strike efforts. More than a few writers have loudly proclaimed they donate to it, but I have no idea of its numbers. This is as much or more than I have heard of any union or management team doing during a previous strike or lockout, though, again, I still think I recall a production company setting up a similar fund this month, and I would be happy to put them side by side if somebody can find the url.

If the two sides get back to talking, they can settle things and these funds will be irrelevant. As long as nobody is talking, those other workers need a bit of help, because it could be a long waiting game until one side or the other is crushed. Sheesh, it is a charity, not compulsory. If you feel like giving to it, do so. If you do not, or have found something better, don't.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

bigpuma said:


> I don't get it Amnesia, on one hand you are ok with a free market but now you are against it? Please explain. Why is it ok for individuals to join together to give themselves a stronger negotiating position by forming a corporation but it is not ok to unionize?





Martin Tupper said:


> What is wrong with an employee telling his employer "If you hire that guy, I walk"? What is wrong with two employees saying that? Three? More? Do they not have the right to threaten to leave if someone they do not approve of is hired?
> 
> So what is wrong when those same employees give a representative the authority to negotiate such matters on their behalf?


The point is that Amnesia is not really in favor of free markets. He is in favor of individual economic self-maximization. In his world, there is no "community". There is only a bunch of individual economic self-maximizers out there, competing against all others to get the biggest piece of economic pie for him or her self. The idea that a bunch of individuals would band together for the benefit of the entire group (even if some of the members of the group are thereby voluntarily giving up the ability to get more on their own than they will get through the group resolution) is an aberration to him.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

Back in the "Updates" part of the thread , several outlets are reporting that Weinstein Co. has inked a side deal with the WGA. Of course, most articles have spin from one side or the other, but the NY Times article seems mostly spin-free.

Before people jump on the "cracks are here, the strike will be over soon" bandwagon, there were ~150 or so such deals in the 1988 strike, but nothing was settled until the big boys got into play. At least one relatively high-profile writer has gone fi-core, as well, so the AMPTP is not the only side with cracks. Both groups can see reasons to dig in, if they so choose.

It should encourage both sides though, that yesterday Les Moonves says he wants to get back to the table, but even in that encouraging article he indicated he was only "guardedly optimistic that it [the strike] will be over in the next few months."

Hopefully, they two sides can find some face-saving way whereby the WGA can remove the jurisdictional parts of their demands, and the AMPTP can withdraw the other parts of their ultimatum, and they can sit down again and hash out the remaining parts that matter. (George Clooney apparently offered to help -- insert your own Smug Alert! joke here  )


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

The John Ridley article is interesting. As it points out that writers have no choice but to join the guild. I would have more empathy and support for the guild if they had not made their existence mandatory to work in Hollywood. All of the guilds in Hollywood are like this, but he is not a member by choice and he opposes a lot of what they have done.

I think if you are going to allow people the choice to join a union, you should also allow them a choice to NOT belong to a union and still work.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

marksman said:


> The John Ridley article is interesting. As it points out that writers have no choice but to join the guild. I would have more empathy and support for the guild if they had not made their existence mandatory to work in Hollywood. All of the guilds in Hollywood are like this, but he is not a member by choice and he opposes a lot of what they have done.
> 
> I think if you are going to allow people the choice to join a union, you should also allow them a choice to NOT belong to a union and still work.


Agreed, but it is slightly more complicated than Ridley states, at least in the case of the WGA. I am not sure about SAG or DGA, but I believe you eventually have to join the WGA only if a certain threshold of your work is for production companies that have signed with the WGA. If you work for production companies that have not signed such a deal, you do not. It is harder to get Hollywood distribution if you are outside the union/AMPTP circle, but, if those principles matter enough to you, the option is there.

Spike Lee is probably the most famous example -- he is not a member, although he both writes and produces films. (In fact, his current film has not shut down.) Had "Three Kings" and "Undercover Brother" been 40 Acres and Mule productions, John Ridley probably would not have had to join. Once he began to work mostly for production companies that had signed that union contract with the guild, he did, if he wanted to keep working for that company.

Clarification: Spike Lee has written/produced films without being a WGA member, and his the imdb credits on his films suggest he still is not, though I am not sure. I do not know if 40 Acres and a Mule is an AMPTP member/WGA signatory or not, though his current film work is proceeding unaffected by the strike.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

AJRitz said:


> The point is that Amnesia is not really in favor of free markets.


Nope, you're wrong. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to try to put words in my mouth.


bigpuma said:


> I don't get it Amnesia, on one hand you are ok with a free market but now you are against it? Please explain. Why is it ok for individuals to join together to give themselves a stronger negotiating position by forming a corporation but it is not ok to unionize?


I never said it wasn't OK to unionize.

What I *did* say was that I felt closed shops were...bad, wrong, whatever you want to call it. A group of people joining forces to prevent anyone who isn't a part of their group from getting a job at a particular company unless that person pays them money...that's just wrong.

Now, I am certainly anti-union, but that's not the same as saying that I feel that it's not OK to unionize. (I'm also anti-smoking, but I don't think smoking should be illegal.) The reason that I'm anti-union is precisely because I'm in favor of free markets.

Writers are kind of a funny unions because they're creatively-based, so let's just take another union as an example. Let's say you have two people---Stan and Henry---in the auto industry and their jobs are to run machines that stamps metal parts. And let's say that Stan is much better at his job: faster, less wastage, etc.

Now absent a union, the company would probably pay Stan more, rewarding him for his excellence. This is good for Stan, because his hard work pays off. This is good for the company because they are able to spend their labor dollars on the best workers---and disparity of income could help encourage Henry to improve. An since it's a free market, if Stan isn't justly compensated, then he might choose to move to a competitor's factory.

OK, now if there's a union, then Stan and Henry might get paid the same. Or whoever has seniority would get paid more. Stan's hard work no longer is worth anything. Henry has no incentive to improve. The company can no longer try to get the better workers and the worker have no incentive to be better.



Martin Tupper said:


> It depends on what services he is providing for that $50/mo. If his job is to negotiate hiring/firing practices, working conditions, compensation, and benefits for his clients (and possibly provide them with ancillary services like legal counsel), then 'no' that isn't extortion. That is the cost of his services as an "agent".


Agents can only be called such if they're chosen voluntarily. If someone takes money from you and forces you to "accept" his services as an agent, that's still extortion.

What makes it extortion is that you don't have a choice.


----------



## OldFantom (Aug 24, 2004)

It strikes me as odd that this thread keeps growing. I think the last update was a few weeks back - "They ain't talking". With four items after that three side deals and the Golden Globes. My rental activity on Netflix is going way up.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> Nope, you're wrong. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to try to put words in my mouth.
> I never said it wasn't OK to unionize.
> 
> What I *did* say was that I felt closed shops were...bad, wrong, whatever you want to call it. A group of people joining forces to prevent anyone who isn't a part of their group from getting a job at a particular company unless that person pays them money...that's just wrong.
> ...


When the company became a closed shop, didn't it do so voluntarily? Did it agree to be a closed shop? Did it accept that condition as part of a larger agreement? If so, then an individual has no right to work there if the company has decided to only hire union members. That was the company's decision and its their money.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Nope, you're wrong. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to try to put words in my mouth.
> I never said it wasn't OK to unionize.
> 
> What I *did* say was that I felt closed shops were...bad, wrong, whatever you want to call it. A group of people joining forces to prevent anyone who isn't a part of their group from getting a job at a particular company unless that person pays them money...that's just wrong.
> ...


But you don't want the employer to have the right to sign a contract that requires their employees to be unionized. How is that being pro free-market? Shouldn't the employer and employees have the right to agree to any contract language that they wish?



> Writers are kind of a funny unions because they're creatively-based, so let's just take another union as an example. Let's say you have two people---Stan and Henry---in the auto industry and their jobs are to run machines that stamps metal parts. And let's say that Stan is much better at his job: faster, less wastage, etc.
> 
> Now absent a union, the company would probably pay Stan more, rewarding him for his excellence. This is good for Stan, because his hard work pays off. This is good for the company because they are able to spend their labor dollars on the best workers---and disparity of income could help encourage Henry to improve. An since it's a free market, if Stan isn't justly compensated, then he might choose to move to a competitor's factory.
> 
> ...


Except that you do have a choice, you can choose to work somewhere else or join the union. Again why do you want to remove the right of the employer and employee to enter into a contract that they both agree to?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

bigpuma said:


> Again why do you want to remove the right of the employer and employee to enter into a contract that they both agree to?


The closed shop is a deal between the employer and the *union*, not the employee. That's just the point---the hiring process should be between the company and the employee.


bigpuma said:


> But you don't want the employer to have the right to sign a contract that requires their employees to be unionized.


You make it sound like it's the company's idea! No, I don't want the union to have the legal right to restrict a company's employees to be dues-paying members of the union.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

What &#37; of the union voted to have it's current rules?

-smak-


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> The closed shop is a deal between the employer and the *union*, not the employee. That's just the point---the hiring process should be between the company and the employee.


But the employees voted to unionize so what's the difference? Are you against corporations as well? A corporation is a group of individuals who bring together their capital to improve their bargaining position. A union is the same thing but with labor instead of capital.



> You make it sound like it's the company's idea! No, I don't want the union to have the legal right to restrict a company's employees to be dues-paying members of the union.


The company agreed to it. They signed the contract because they thought it would benefit them. That's the free market at work.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

bigpuma said:


> But the employees voted to unionize so what's the difference?


If you recall, we're discussing a non-employee who is trying to join the company without being forced to join the union. That (potential) employee did *not* choose to unionize.



bigpuma said:


> A corporation is a group of individuals who bring together their capital to improve their bargaining position. A union is the same thing but with labor instead of capital.


No it's not. People don't form corporations to "improve [their] bargaining position"! It's done to raise capital and protect prior possessions from legal actions.

But bringing together capital and bringing together labor isn't the same thing at all. Money is money. A dollar from one place is exactly the same as a dollar from another; it has the same purchasing power, the same appreciation, etc.

People are different. They are individuals. Two employees bring different levels of skill to a job and an efficient workplace rewards that by compensating the higher-skilled worker accordingly.



bigpuma said:


> The company agreed to it. They signed the contract because they thought it would benefit them. That's the free market at work.


No it's not. If a robber held a gun to your kid's head and said "Give me all your money or I pull the trigger", is that simply the free market at work? No, it's extortion. Similarly, if a company decides that between the options of having their workers strike for an extended period of time or giving the union the right to extort money from potential employees, that they'd rather get back to work---well, that's not the free market talking...

...and to bring it back to the writers (remember them?), that's one of the key sticking points in the lack of negotiation progress. The WGA is trying to "close the shops" in animation and reality TV productions and the producers are refusing to even discuss it.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> Are you saying you're a socialist?


You have a very narrow view of the world. The free market is a great system where it works. Unfortunately, the free market is not a magic fairy that makes this the best of all possible worlds.



aindik said:


> The only way to succeed in a free market is to offer something for which another person is voluntarily willing to pay. There is no coerscion. A person is only as exploited as his options for other people to whom he can sell what he sells. Contrast this with non-free systems, where governments simply extract resources by force and distribute them in a way they like better.


If your alternative is work or starve, you don't call that coercion? In most jobs, labor is a commodity. An employer can replace one worker with another with little interruption. When a person works a full workweek and still lives below the poverty line, something is wrong. The Free Market doesn't care about this.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> If you recall, we're discussing a non-employee who is trying to join the company without being forced to join the union. That (potential) employee did *not* choose to unionize.


What difference does that make. The company they are applying to work at has signed a contract requiring that anyone they hire join the union. The potential employee can choose to join the union or look for work elsewhere.



> No it's not. People don't form corporations to "improve [their] bargaining position"! It's done to raise capital and protect prior possessions from legal actions.
> 
> But bringing together capital and bringing together labor isn't the same thing at all. Money is money. A dollar from one place is exactly the same as a dollar from another; it has the same purchasing power, the same appreciation, etc.


Ok so I worded that badly. The idea is still the same. It is a group of people coming together to improve their position. In this case it is raising capital.



> People are different. They are individuals. Two employees bring different levels of skill to a job and an efficient workplace rewards that by compensating the higher-skilled worker accordingly.


I don't see how this really matters. If the company wants to agree to the terms of the collective bargaining and that effects their ability to hire qualified then they signed a bad deal. I know where I work the union contracts allow my company to compensate someone appropriately if they have higher experience and skills for a particular position.



> No it's not. If a robber held a gun to your kid's head and said "Give me all your money or I pull the trigger", is that simply the free market at work? No, it's extortion


I agree that isn't a free market but I am confused as to what that has to do with our discussion. No one is holding a gun to the managers' heads.



> Similarly, if a company decides that between the options of having their workers strike for an extended period of time or giving the union the right to extort money from potential employees, that they'd rather get back to work---well, that's not the free market talking...


This is exactly what the free market is. The company making a decision about what is in it's best interest and the employees using their combined strength to improve their position in negotiation.



> ...and to bring it back to the writers (remember them?), that's one of the key sticking points in the lack of negotiation progress. The WGA is trying to "close the shops" in animation and reality TV productions and the producers are refusing to even discuss it.


If the WGA can effect other "shops" more power to them, and if the producers don't even want to talk that is their choice as well. I am not taking sides in this case they both have the right in a free market to negotiate and to use tactics to improve their strength.


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

bigpuma said:


> What difference does that make. The company they are applying to work at has signed a contract requiring that anyone they hire join the union. The potential employee can choose to join the union or look for work elsewhere.


That is one of the major problems. In Hollywood if you are not a union worker there is nowhere else to find that type of work.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> You make it sound like it's the company's idea!


It doensn't have to be the company's idea. They agreed to it, because, presumably, it benefitted them in some way (or else they never would have agreed to it). Isn't it their money, and don't they get to do what they want with it?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jamesbobo said:


> In a free market they should be free to join together.


So then please explain why Northwest, Delta and United cannot merge into a single airline?

Sorry, James, but collusion is anti-competitive, and competition must be maintained on all sides, unless you hand the reigns of control over to the government. So if a union can shut down an entire industry, then the government should regulate it and the government should unilaterally decide how much the workers should get, just like if a company can shut down an entire industry it is regulated by the government which determines how much it can charge for its products or services. The union should never have the ability to negotiate for what it wants with the power to shut an industry down.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> When you narrow the focus to that degree, there is somewhat of a chicken-and-the-egg problem. I would be at least as surprised as you if any of those 30 shows are non-union WGA/SAG/DGA.


In other words, the WGA has a monopoly on large scale television productions. Therefore, they should be regulated by the government, and not able to use their monopolistic power in their negotiations. That's fairness, since companies cannot use corresponding monopolistic power, as the only large scale supplier in a marketplace, as a negotiating tool against their customers.

Same - same. And with the airline example above, it isn't even monopolistic power being prevented, but just dominant supplier power, one large airline among two or three other large airlines that would still remain after the merger I alluded to.



Fassade said:


> Since they both correlate, which is the ultimate cause?


In our society, it doesn't matter how a company becomes a monopoly or a dominant supplier. They get regulated regardless.



Fassade said:


> In the geography under union rules, unions have a near-monopoly on specific labor pools, but in that same region the AMPTP productions houses have just a strong of a hold on production.


I disagree. The production houses cannot collude. They cannot get together and plot against the union. They're simply not allowed to. I know you disagree, but you're wrong as far as I'm concerned. The AMPTP exists as a force in this equation only because the union insists it exist. And regardless of what I believe is your mistaken perception of the reality, the simple fact is that each employee should operate as an independent, and each production house should operate as an independent. No collusion. Fully competitive with their competitors, competitors for business and competitors for jobs.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

bigpuma said:


> I am not clear on what you are saying. Individuals should have the right to bargain collectively. That's what unions do and that's what corporations do.


Corporations do not have the right to bargain collectively, and therefore individuals shouldn't either. Competition is a foundation of capitalism. It fosters innovation, and productivity, hallmarks of American business.


----------



## Martin Tupper (Dec 18, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Agents can only be called such if they're chosen voluntarily. If someone takes money from you and forces you to "accept" his services as an agent, that's still extortion.
> 
> What makes it extortion is that you don't have a choice.


There are many rules of employment that are mandatory.

Some companies require their employees to belong to certain professional organizations. Is that extortion?

There are many companies that require employees to wear suits to work every day. The employees are required to pay for those suits if they want to work there. Is that extortion?


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

I've solved the problem. END LABOR!
Labor is now a business and like a business it's free to incorporate. So instead of the writers union there's the writers corp., the auto workers corp, etc.
I am a genius.


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

Martin Tupper said:


> There are many rules of employment that are mandatory.
> 
> Some companies require their employees to belong to certain professional organizations. Is that extortion?
> 
> There are many companies that require employees to wear suits to work every day. The employees are required to pay for those suits if they want to work there. Is that extortion?


That is comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Martin Tupper said:


> Some companies require their employees to belong to certain professional organizations. Is that extortion?


There are too many instances of this to give a blanket statement. Give me a specifc example and I'll tell you.



Martin Tupper said:


> There are many companies that require employees to wear suits to work every day. The employees are required to pay for those suits if they want to work there. Is that extortion?


Nope. That's part of the relationship between employer and employee. We're discussing a third party with their hand out.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> I disagree. The production houses cannot collude. They cannot get together and plot against the union. They're simply not allowed to. I know you disagree, but you're wrong as far as I'm concerned. The AMPTP exists as a force in this equation only because the union insists it exist.


Actually, now you are putting words in my mouth  I do not disagree with any of these statements.

The production houses legally cannot collude (except in sanctioned organizations like the AMPTP), but the fact of the matter is they *did*, back in the day, and the government's response to this and other excesses was to allow unionization. You can argue that the government should have simply enforced existing laws better, but they did not. Perhaps they felt it was more efficient to allow a "Big Labor" group to be the watchdog instead of the courts; I have no idea, but the unions now exist. If it helps explain where we diverge, perhaps think of the unions here as a punishment for the bad behavior of management. Perhaps that behavior is even in the past, but examples even in the past couple of years suggest it is not. In any case, as a practical matter, for the various pools of workers to trust them, it would seem incumbent upon the studios to prove this change, or else, even if the unions were to be forcibly dissolved forcibly tomorrow, they are likely to reform shortly thereafter.

Believe it or not, I typically prefer a situation where entities negotiate free and unencumbered, as well; I am just skeptical it works here, primarily due to accounting history. The studio not only negotiates percentages with individuals|unions, but it is also the sole determinor of the size of the pie. As a result, the management side of the table has access to information that is not discoverable by the labor side at the time of negotiation, and management can even unilaterally manipulate the amount of final payments after negotiations conclude. This puts the worker at an unfair disadvantage in bargaining, which leads to unionization. I know the response can be "if you do not like the terms, just walk" -- but the point is that the worker does not have all the information necessary to decide if walking is a rational response. Had they this information, I would have no problem with individual negotiations.

In fact, from my perspective (I do not know about the WGA's), most strike issues would simply go away if this possibility of accounting tricks was removed, so that, when a writer|director|actor negotiated 0.4% or 2%, he or she had all the information to forecast rationally the resulting dollars. The WGA proposed something along these lines (point W-12a), but that was one of the 6 points the AMPTP said was completely non-negotiable, and that they would not return to the table unless and until the WGA removed it completely, calling even the appointing of an arbitrator for accounting disputes "utterly unacceptable."

I am at heart a free-marketer, and I think we might even be on the same side of this particular debate if the AMPTP were to negotiate that single point, so that a determined worker could discover the same information at negotiation time. In such a situation, I agree a free market works best. Absent that, I hold the hollywood unions as a necessary evil, and am more sympathetic to their demands.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

As another pure "update" part, the AMPTP and DGA formally begin negotiations today. (January 12)


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Fassade said:


> As another pure "update" part, the AMPTP and DGA formally begin negotiations today. (January 12)


Any word on what happened with the issues that the AMPTP wanted off the table? Did they decide to resume talks even with this issues still in contention or did the WGA agree to remove them from the current negotiations?


----------



## Rosincrans (May 4, 2006)

Amnesia said:


> Any word on what happened with the issues that the AMPTP wanted off the table? Did they decide to resume talks even with this issues still in contention or did the WGA agree to remove them from the current negotiations?


DGA, not WGA.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

It appears the final nail has been put in the coffin for that farewell season of Scrubs, as ABC Studios has exercised their option to terminate the contracts of a couple dozen producers and writer/producers. From the article: 


> Among the ABC casualties were Curb Your Enthusiasm executive producer and Borat director Larry Charles, Scrubs' Bill Callahan, That 70s Show's Joshua Sternin and Jeffrey Ventimilia, Gone Baby Gone's Sean Bailey and Private Practice star Taye Diggs, who's still on the show but saw his production deal get axed.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> ... but the fact of the matter is they *did*, back in the day ...


Back in the day, Southern plantations kept slaves. This "legalized extortion" is happening _today_. It is wrong _today_. It should be stopped _today_.


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> It appears the final nail has been put in the coffin for that farewell season of Scrubs, as ABC Studios has exercised their option to terminate the contracts of a couple dozen producers and writer/producers. From the article:


This will be very interesting to see how it fully plays out.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> Back in the day, Southern plantations kept slaves. This "legalized extortion" is happening _today_. It is wrong _today_. It should be stopped _today_.


I have never defended any excess of any union. If you read the rest of the comment, all I said was that, as long as the production companies hold advantages such as negotiating percentages of a pie and being the sole, private, and unaudited determinors of how big that pie is, they hold an unfair advantage over any other party in negotiations. As long as that advantage exists, those other parties have a legitimate case under the law to unionize as a counterweight. Stopping the "legalized extortion" today without also addressing that underlying issue is just going to result in it coming back again tomorrow.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Fassade said:


> It appears the final nail has been put in the coffin for that farewell season of Scrubs, as ABC Studios has exercised their option to terminate the contracts of a couple dozen producers and writer/producers.


If it were Bill *Lawrence*, I'd be more concerned...


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> If it were Bill *Lawrence*, I'd be more concerned...


Good point...Bill Callhan is an executive producer, but until Bill Lawrence is on that list, saying "final nail" is premature. Hopefully, the strike will end soon enough for at least a closeout few episodes, even if next year. Scrubs may not have been as funny the past couple of years as it was earlier in its run, but I still have grown attached to the characters, and I would like to see how they decide to wrap it up.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

bicker said:


> Corporations do not have the right to bargain collectively, and therefore individuals shouldn't either. Competition is a foundation of capitalism. It fosters innovation, and productivity, hallmarks of American business.


As far as I'm concerned, that corporations exist is reason enough for individuals to bargain collectively.

The greatest achievements of mankind: writing, control of fire, invention of wheel and axle, were all done without capital or competition. You don't need them for innovation and productivity. Sometimes I think we'd be better off if capital (currency) were never developed in the first place. Imagine the advances we would make if no one had to worry about running out of funds for research? Without currency, people would work because they wanted to instead of have to. It would be real freedom.

And while I'm venting, you keep using the term "legal extortion". That doesn't exist, so it doesn't mean anything. Extortion is illegal, so if something is legal it cannot be extortion. The state forces me to buy insurance to drive a car, should I tell them I don't have to because it's legal extortion? For that matter, if I want a loaf of bread I'm forced to give the grocer $3, should I tell him I don't have to because it's legal extortion? Since legal extortion doesn't exist, I can make it to mean anything I want to.
I could say forcing people to work for money is legalized slavery and should be stopped now. But that would make as little sense as legalized extortion since the term legalized slavery is just something I made up. It can only exist in you mind, it has no legal standing.

Well, I'm done and I'm sure you will disagree with everything I said. So I'll save the time of posting again by saying I don't agree with whatever it is you're about to post.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

jamesbobo said:


> The greatest achievements of mankind: writing, control of fire, invention of wheel and axle, were all done without capital or competition.


Those inventions (agriculture fits in there too) greatly aided the tribe's ability to survive, which is the ultimate competition.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

jamesbobo said:


> And while I'm venting, you keep using the term "legal extortion". _(...)_ Extortion is illegal, so if something is legal it cannot be extortion.


That's why it appears in quotes. And the definition of "extortion" doesn't specify whether it's legal or illegal; it describes the act itself---most extortion is illegal because the laws say it is. In the case of requiring employees to pay a union in order to get a job, it's legal.



jamesbobo said:


> For that matter, if I want a loaf of bread I'm forced to give the grocer $3, should I tell him I don't have to because it's legal extortion?


Nope. The definition of "extortion" generally involves a third party. If you want to buy from a grocer and someone stops you and says that if you want to shop here you need to pay him $1, *that*'s extortion.



jamesbobo said:


> Since legal extortion doesn't exist, I can make it to mean anything I want to.


No again. Since as I mentioned, the definition of "extortion" doesn't specify its legal status, the word "legal" is just a qualifier and cannot change the basic meaning of the word "extortion".

For example, selling marijuana is generally illegal. Does that mean the phrase "legalized selling of marijuana" is meaningless? Of course not. It means, well, selling marijuana within the law (as is done for medical marijuana in California). The same logic applies to the phrase "legal extortion".


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

jamesbobo said:


> The greatest achievements of mankind: writing, control of fire, invention of wheel and axle, were all done without capital or competition. You don't need them for innovation and productivity. Sometimes I think we'd be better off if capital (currency) were never developed in the first place. Imagine the advances we would make if no one had to worry about running out of funds for research? Without currency, people would work because they wanted to instead of have to. It would be real freedom.


Currency is just a representation of wealth. Removing currency removes the representation of wealth, but the wealth is still there. Having the freedom to work because we want to and don't need to while having access to an unlimited supply of free resources would allow us to remove currency, but it doesn't work the other way around. Removing currency wouldn't automatically turn us into some utopian world where no one needs to work to meet his or her basic needs. If that were the case, currency would have never been developed in the first place.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

vman41 said:


> Those inventions (agriculture fits in there too) greatly aided the tribe's ability to survive, which is the ultimate competition.


OK, you got me there.



Amnesia said:


> That's why it appears in quotes. And the definition of "extortion" doesn't specify whether it's legal or illegal; it describes the act itself---most extortion is illegal because the laws say it is. In the case of requiring employees to pay a union in order to get a job, it's legal.
> 
> Nope. The definition of "extortion" generally involves a third party. If you want to buy from a grocer and someone stops you and says that if you want to shop here you need to pay him $1, *that*'s extortion.
> 
> ...


That sounds reasonable, I'll even go along with all of that.

Now I will attempt the impossible. I am going to get you to agree that groups have rights and I will explain it in such a way that no one can argue it.
First, pick any group: unions, Boy Scouts, the government, churches, even man and wife. If none of those groups had any rights they could not exist. The fact that they do exist shows that they have rights: the right to exist. I will call the right to exist the first right common to all groups. However, this does not mean that all groups have the right to exist. If one of them breaks the laws of the society they are in they would lose that right.
So what other rights do they have? That depends on the group and its function. In the case of the government they have the right to make currency, enact laws, enforce those laws etc. When a couple gets married they have some rights that single people don't have.

Now who can argue with that? 
I guess you'll come up with something 
I know I said I wouldn't post anymore but I couldn't resist this last try. But this is it, promise.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

jamesbobo said:


> Now I will attempt the impossible. I am going to get you to agree that groups have rights and I will explain it in such a way that no one can argue it.
> First, pick any group: unions, Boy Scouts, the government, churches, even man and wife. If none of those groups had any rights they could not exist. The fact that they do exist shows that they have rights: the right to exist. I will call the right to exist the first right common to all groups. However, this does not mean that all groups have the right to exist. If one of them breaks the laws of the society they are in they would lose that right.
> So what other rights do they have? That depends on the group and its function. In the case of the government they have the right to make currency, enact laws, enforce those laws etc. When a couple gets married they have some rights that single people don't have.
> 
> ...


I argue with that.

None of those groups have the right to exist. If nobody wanted to join the boy scouts, the boy scouts would not exist. If nobody wanted to be in a union, the union would not exist. If two people did not want to get married, the "man and wife" would not exist. If people did not want to get together to worship, the church would not exist. If the groups had a right to exist, they could exist whether anybody wanted to be in that group, or not.

Individuals, however, have the right to freely associate in whatever manner they choose. A group of boys may choose to associate and form the Boy Scouts. A group of workers may choose to associate and form a union, etc. But the groups themselves have no right to exist.

As for government, our government exists because indivuduals chose to form the government. "*We the people...*" People are individuals. The government doesn't have any rights that individuals did not give it. Individuals gave our grovernment the right to make currency, enact laws, etc.

What rights do married people have that single people do not?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

jamesbobo said:


> The fact that they do exist shows that they have rights: the right to exist.


You seem to be arguing that the possession of something implies a right to that thing. Isn't that what you're saying? I hope you can see that that argument is without merit. For example, if I steal your car, does that mean I have the right to your car?


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

JETarpon said:


> I argue with that.
> 
> As for government, our government exists because indivuduals chose to form the government. "*We the people...*" People are individuals. The government doesn't have any rights that individuals did not give it. Individuals gave our grovernment the right to make currency, enact laws, etc.
> 
> What rights do married people have that single people do not?


But there is nothing we don't agree on, that is exactly what I've been saying. Whatever rights a group has is whatever rights the individuals give it.

As for the rest, if people didn't evolve there would be no people. So people would have no rights using your argument (that's how I read it).

Married couples? Hospital visitation rights for one. Some tax breaks for another.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> You seem to be arguing that the possession of something implies a right to that thing. Isn't that what you're saying? I hope you can see that that argument is without merit. For example, if I steal your car, does that mean I have the right to your car?


Dang, I'm breaking my promise. Only because that is absolutely not what I'm saying. In fact, it's so far out of left field that I have no idea how you arrive at that conclusion.

But that is it. Please ask no more questions I am done


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

jamesbobo said:


> But there is nothing we don't agree on, that is exactly what I've been saying. Whatever rights a group has is whatever rights the individuals give it.


But a group doesn't have any rights that the individuals themselves don't have to give.



> As for the rest, if people didn't evolve there would be no people. So people would have no rights using your argument (that's how I read it).


I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here.



> Married couples? Hospital visitation rights for one. Some tax breaks for another.


But tax breaks aren't rights. They are simply different taxation rates.

Does a married couple have the ability to go visit a friend or family member in a hospital that a single person couldn't go visit? I didn't realize that.

Or do you mean that a married person can go visit their spouse in the hospital when a single person can't go visit their spouse in the hospital? (Which of course is due to the fact that the single person doesn't have a spouse, not because they don't have the same rights as the married person.)


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

jamesbobo said:


> In fact, it's so far out of left field that I have no idea how you arrive at that conclusion.


Because you say that the fact that group exist shows they have the right to exist.
Or said another way, that because a group has "existence" shows they have the right to "existence".
That's why it seems like you're saying that because a group has something they have a right to that thing.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

who wants to explain the effects of the Force Majeure clauses being invoked by many studios? http://community.tvguide.com/blog/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Strike-Watch-Season/800059822

The only thing I care about..How will it affect Lost?!!??


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

tiams said:


> who wants to explain the effects of the Force Majeure clauses being invoked by many studios? http://community.tvguide.com/blog/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Strike-Watch-Season/800059822
> 
> The only thing I care about..How will it affect Lost?!!??


Generally, a Force Majeure clause in a contract is there to protect the parties from liability for not performing in the event of circumstances beyond control of the parties, i.e. acts of God, war, etc. Since the strike is beyond the control of the studios, it's a perfect "escape clause" for them to terminate deals that were not going to be profitable for the studios. I don't think it will have any effect on LOST, since ABC would experience a HUGE backlash if they didn't allow the series to end properly.


----------



## Indiana627 (Jan 24, 2003)

For Lost, it probably means for sure only 8 episodes this spring (the 8 that have already been shot) instead of the 16 that were planned. I assume those 8 would be made up once the strike is settled (at least I hope).


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Best Golden Globes ever!!!! 

I still have plenty on my Tivo. There are a lot of interesting things on the news, on Discovery channel(s) etc.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

According to Rasmussen, nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults say the strike has little or no effect on them. I think this should begin to signal to the WGA that their "plight" is not registering with the American public.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> According to Rasmussen, nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults say the strike has little or no effect on them. I think this should begin to signal to the WGA that their "plight" is not registering with the American public.


Now wait just a minute! Didn't you know this strike has "unprecedented support by the American Public?"


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Yeah 2 some months in and my main viewing DVR is at maximum capacity just like it always is. I daily have to delete stuff I don't have time to watch. January has brought us some new Network Programming. Seeing how I expected them to hold it back for Sweeps, I have to believe next month we are going to be deluged with Reality Programming. Which is fine by me.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

It is not a surprising of an answer to that question. Unless you work in Hollywood, the writers strike is not going to affect your life in significant way -- TV is just leisure time, which almost by definition is something you can replace with something else with little to no impact on your life. I do not think the WGA should worry about that question, but this one in that same study should should probably scare them:


> In the same survey, only 30% of adults say they miss their favorite T.V. shows affected by the strike. The majority (60%) said they do not.


If even the "favorite" written shows are not keeping a loyal following, that should definitely scare the writers. As long as the eyeballs are there, that will not worry producers nearly as much, unless a lot of that 60% is ditching TV altogether. Anybody know how much, if any, overall viewership is down, or is most of the public still watching about the same amount, and just shuffling which shows?


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

We all are conditioned to down times with no new shows. Between repeats during the regular season, to the summer break with nothing but repeats, I think people have no problem adjusting their routine to the lack of new programing. Moreover, there are a few programs now that are still showing new episodes. I don't think it is that surprising that this is not registering with most people.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

If I was running a studio, that would scare me. Hollywood is practically shut down, and nobody even notices!


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

allan said:


> If I was running a studio, that would scare me. Hollywood is practically shut down, and nobody even notices!


I dunno, I think the studios themselves are OK. The studios these days are just pieces of huge comglomerates with lots of revenue streams. People are still watching TV. People will still watch sports. People will still buy DVDs. The networks will continue to sell advertising.

On the other hand, they are spending millions less than normal everyday since nothing is in production.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

The problem is, the longer the strike goes, the more it effects other things. Like movies. We never even talk about movies, because the time between the writing of the script and the release of the movie is so long.

So far they can probably get by, and i'm pretty sure that new scripts will be "written" in record time when the not supposed to be writing writers get back to work.

But if this strike goes to 6 months or 9 months, then you are talking about potentially hundreds of millions of dollars being lost, if not more.

-smak-


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

smak said:


> But if this strike goes to 6 months or 9 months, then you are talking about potentially hundreds of millions of dollars being lost, if not more.


There's no "potentially" about it. I've seen estimates that just the *writers* have lost $150M-$200M so far...and I seem to remember hearing a figure of $500M for the industry as a whole...and that's for only...what? about 2 months?


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

smak said:


> The problem is, the longer the strike goes, the more it effects other things. Like movies. We never even talk about movies, because the time between the writing of the script and the release of the movie is so long.
> 
> So far they can probably get by, and i'm pretty sure that new scripts will be "written" in record time when the not supposed to be writing writers get back to work.
> 
> ...


There are a few things I don't accept about your premise. First the notion that they will "run-out" of scripts; there are always lots of fully written screenplays floating around Hollywood (the old joke being everyone in LA has their script in the trunk of their car, just in case); and judging by all the crap movies (like all the ones based on old TV shows) that make money, I don't think it matters much.

Second, the idea that the consumer is going to put his entertainment dollar in his pocket and not spend it on something else the media conglomerates have their fingers in - people are going to spend their entertainment dollar on entertainment and that money is going to find it's way to the same coffers.

But mainly I disagree with the notion that the studios will "cut off their nose to spite their face" the way the writers have. The writers may know haw to write a script better than the 'suits' they love to deride; but all those MBAs know business better than the writers and they are not going to let the strike affect the bottom line, long term.

I have believed since this began that the studios are a move or two ahead of the writers and are fully prepared to wait this out. Joe and Jane Doe writer are going to be scrambling to pay their mortgage long before the shareholders call for any studio heads.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> There's no "potentially" about it. I've seen estimates that just the *writers* have lost $150M-$200M so far...and I seem to remember hearing a figure of $500M for the industry as a whole...and that's for only...what? about 2 months?


Well, yeah, the writers have lost their salaries, which means that the studios have kept that money.

That $500M figure is a red-herring. Lost how? Are advertisers not paying for ads? The Golden Globes didn't sell $500M in ads that had to be refunded. Maybe there's $500M in lost salary, by some elaborate calculation, but once again that's money that the studios have not had to pay out...


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

latrobe7 said:


> Maybe there's $500M in lost salary, by some elaborate calculation, but once again that's money that the studios have not had to pay out...


The $500M is the general number for the economic effect of the strike---not the effect on the studios, but for the LA area. Salaries for writers and non-writing staff, sure...but closing down production on TV shows has had a much great impact on the local economy. Restaurants, bars, stores, etc are all feeling the effects of a large number of people without regular paychecks.

This is the article I saw with the $500M figure.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> The $500M is the general number for the economic effect of the strike---not the effect on the studios, but for the LA area.


Oh yeah, that's true; my point was that the economic damage is only hurting the writers side and the uninvolved people caught in the middle. It's not affecting the studios directly and not forcing them back to the table.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> The $500M is the general number for the economic effect of the strike---not the effect on the studios, but for the LA area. Salaries for writers and non-writing staff, sure...but closing down production on TV shows has had a much great impact on the local economy. Restaurants, bars, stores, etc are all feeling the effects of a large number of people without regular paychecks.
> 
> This is the article I saw with the $500M figure.


I saw a story that estimated that it was already at $1 Billion. I remember being surprised at that because the estimates for the 1988 strike were only $500 million for the entire strike, which was 6+ months. So for this one to already be at $1 billion after only two months is amazing. Although I'm not surprised. I'm sure there are many more businesses depending on the Hollywood economy now, and when you add in inflation, that's not surprising at all.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

latrobe7 said:


> Oh yeah, that's true; my point was that the economic damage is only hurting the writers side and the uninvolved people caught in the middle. It's not affecting the studios directly and not forcing them back to the table.


That's because the fruits of the writer's labor don't come the same day.

A writer may make a weekly salary. The first week he's on strike, he loses his paycheck.

But the stuff he's written for the past weeks or months haven't been used yet. They are going to be used in the future. Much longer if it's a film screenplay.

So a writer may be missing a paycheck for 2 months, but the studios are barely effected, because they are filming scripts written 6 months ago or 12 months ago.

What happens 6 months and 12 months from now? And the answer isn't previously written scripts that have been sitting around Hollywood for years. There's a reason scripts are sitting around Hollywood without being made into a movie. The notion that you find a script that was rejected by everybody in Hollywood, and make it into a money making movie is a little far fetched.

Once in a while it can happen, but to filll a 300 film a year release schedule??

If there's no 24 this year, that means there will be no 24 DVD set 9 months from now.

The studios loss of revenue will be well down the line.

-smak-


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

smak said:


> That's because the fruits of the writer's labor don't come the same day.
> 
> A writer may make a weekly salary. The first week he's on strike, he loses his paycheck.
> 
> ...


Yeah, and if there is no 24 this year, there is no expense to produce it.

And if there is no 24 DVD set to buy, do you think the consumer is going to put his money in savings or donate it to the church?

And 9 months from now, how do you think the union is going to be holding up with its membership in financial ruin? 6-12 months from now, the writers are going to be in far worse shape than the studios; and any pain the studios do ultimately feel will be felt by the writers as well.

Let me ask you this; do you think that either side did not think of any of these points before the strike happened? And who would you think would be better equipped to make a dispassionate, reasoned analysis and formulate a successful strategy; the suits, who are in their element and who are insulated by the corporate structure from feeling the impact of their negotiations; or the writers who are there to be creative, not crunch numbers, and whose livelihood is directly tied to the negotiations they are participating in?


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

latrobe7 said:


> Yeah, and if there is no 24 this year, there is no expense to produce it.
> 
> And if there is no 24 DVD set to buy, do you think the consumer is going to put his money in savings or donate it to the church?
> 
> ...


All hail the brilliant studio suits, who thought spending $40 million to make Heaven's Gate (and just about any amount of money to make Jersey Girl) was a good investment; and brought us the big money-trees that were Cop Rock and the XFL!


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

AJRitz said:


> All hail the brilliant studio suits, who thought spending $40 million to make Heaven's Gate (and just about any amount of money to make Jersey Girl) was a good investment; and brought us the big money-trees that were Cop Rock and the XFL!


Yeah, they're not doing very well for themselves at all. 

And choosing material would be more on the creative lines rather than the business lines; the suits plan for a couple of bombs - who wrote that crap in Heaven's Gate and Cop Rock, anyway? It wasn't the suits.

And I didn't realize Vince McMahon had any stake in this...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

AJRitz said:


> All hail the brilliant studio suits, who thought spending $40 million to make Heaven's Gate (and just about any amount of money to make Jersey Girl) was a good investment; and brought us the big money-trees that were Cop Rock and the XFL!


As if every single movie is like that.   

I wish the software allowed me to roll my eyes more than that.

Spider-Man 3	$336,530,303 gross
Shrek the Third	$322,719,944 gross
Transformers	$319,246,193 gross
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End	$309,420,425 gross
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix	$292,004,738 gross
I Am Legend	$241,444,213 gross
The Bourne Ultimatum	$227,471,070 gross
300	$210,614,939 gross
Ratatouille	$206,445,654 gross
Alvin and the Chipmunks	Fox	$188,671,443 gross


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

bicker said:


> As if every single movie is like that.
> 
> I wish the software allowed me to roll my eyes more than that.
> 
> ...


Those numbers are propaganda. The studios have told us they've still not recouped costs on them. They're all in the red big time. They're money-losers, I tell ya.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

latrobe7 said:


> Yeah, and if there is no 24 this year, there is no expense to produce it.
> 
> And if there is no 24 DVD set to buy, do you think the consumer is going to put his money in savings or donate it to the church?
> 
> ...


You can say that about all strikes, but they eventually get settled, and I'll bet that in a lot of strike situations, management thinks exactly like you do, in the fact that the workers will be much further hit than them, and they can wait them out. But I'm pretty sure that most of them don't get settled by giving management everything they want.

And writers can't get other jobs?

And I'm assuming that Fox puts 24 on the air to make Fox money. If not putting 24 on the air would make them money by not having to pay for it's production, then it would not be on TV.

Fox is in the business to make money. They don't put shows on the air that they know will lose them money. Therefore, not having 24 on the air this year will lose Fox money.

-smak-


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

bicker said:


> As if every single movie is like that.
> 
> I wish the software allowed me to roll my eyes more than that.
> 
> ...


Wow, that's a lot of original writing work that was done on those movies.

I'll give it to the Pixar guys. Otherwise, that's just a lot of adapting of other people's work. Usually not the most inspired work that writers do.

-smak-


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dswallow said:


> Those numbers are propaganda.


 Seems to me that people say so when it is convenient for their argument, but say the opposite when THAT is convenient. Pretty convenient. 

The *fact *is that Hollywood is a *multi-billion dollar per year *industry. They know how to make money. The earlier sarcastic assertion by AJRitz had no merit.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

smak said:


> Wow, that's a lot of original writing work that was done on those movies.


That's more a commentary on what America likes, and consequently still underscores how smart the folks who decided to produce those titles were. Regardless, someone wrote the original material, and in most cases gets paid for it. If that bypasses the WGA, even better.



smak said:


> Usually not the most inspired work that writers do.


Again, another convincing argument to pay writers less, if that which is their least inspired work actually does make more money than their more inspired work.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

bicker said:


> The *fact *is that Hollywood is a *multi-billion dollar per year *industry. They know how to make money. The earlier sarcastic assertion by AJRitz had no merit.


The Hollywood bean-counters thought the writers would, as usual, fold long ago. They also know that the hundreds of millions they are losing now are worth it if they can succeed at screwing the writers out of hundreds of billions in the decades to come. But as they come to realize that probably ain't gonna happen, their task changes to trying to find a way to back themselves out of their corner while making it sound like they're still winning.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

bicker said:


> Seems to me that people say so when it is convenient for their argument, but say the opposite when THAT is convenient. Pretty convenient.


Umm... Zoom.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The Hollywood bean-counters thought the writers would, as usual, fold long ago. They also know that the hundreds of millions they are losing now are worth it if they can succeed at screwing the writers out of hundreds of billions in the decades to come. But as they come to realize that probably ain't gonna happen, their task changes to trying to find a way to back themselves out of their corner while making it sound like they're still winning.


You could say the exact same thing from the other point of view:

The Hollywood pen-jockeys thought the studios would, as usual, fold long ago. They also know that the hundreds of millions they are losing now are worth it if they can succeed at screwing the studios out of hundreds of billions in the decades to come. But as they come to realize that probably ain't gonna happen, their task changes to trying to find a way to back themselves out of their corner while making it sound like they're still winning.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> You could say the exact same thing from the other point of view:


The difference is yours only makes a lick of sense if you ignore everything (or don't know anything) that has happened.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The difference is yours only makes a lick of sense if you ignore everything (or don't know anything) that has happened.


Let's see: Did the writers believe that the studios would fold by now? Yes, I think so.
Have the writers lost hundreds of millions? Yes.
Do they hope that their deal will make them hundreds of billions in the future? Sure.
Are they slowing coming to the realization that they need to come back to the table? I hope so.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> Are they slowing coming to the realization that they need to come back to the table? I hope so.


The writers never left the table. How many times does this need to be said in this thread before people stop getting it wrong?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> Let's see: Did the writers believe that the studios would fold by now? Yes, I think so.
> Have the writers lost hundreds of millions? Yes.
> Do they hope that their deal will make them hundreds of billions in the future? Sure.
> Are they slowing coming to the realization that they need to come back to the table? I hope so.


No, the writers have never believed the studios would fold. They were resigned to a long strike because the studios (apparently alone in all of Hollywood) didn't realize that this time the writers WOULDN'T fold. The writers do not stand to make hundreds of billions from their demands; they only hope to get a tiny sliver of the hundreds of billions the studios will make from New Media in the decades to come (remembering how the studios screwed them out of their sliver of the old new media, home video). And the writers have been at the table all along. It's the studios who walked away and refuse to come back.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

mrmike said:


> The writers never left the table. How many times does this need to be said in this thread before people stop getting it wrong?


Semantics.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

smak said:


> You can say that about all strikes, but they eventually get settled, and I'll bet that in a lot of strike situations, management thinks exactly like you do, in the fact that the workers will be much further hit than them, and they can wait them out. But I'm pretty sure that most of them don't get settled by giving management everything they want.
> 
> And writers can't get other jobs?
> 
> ...


This is where negotiating with and/or striking against all of Hollywood instead of studio by studio gets writers in trouble.

Fox puts 24 on the air because it makes money, only because it is in competition with the other networks.

If 24 wasn't on the air, but every other network had its regular lineup, Fox would probably lose a lot of money to the other networks, because people would watch them instead of Fox. When nobody has anything on the air, people still watch whatever crap is on TV, and Fox probably doesn't lose as much money.

IOW, a strike hurts a business more if its competitors are still operating.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

dswallow said:


> Semantics.


"Leaving the table" has a specific meaning in this sort of negotiation. The AMPTP has left the table. The WGA has not. There is no semantics involved. Saying otherwise is an attempt to put spin on the process.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

mrmike said:


> The writers never left the table. How many times does this need to be said in this thread before people stop getting it wrong?





mrmike said:


> "Leaving the table" has a specific meaning in this sort of negotiation. The AMPTP has left the table. The WGA has not. There is no semantics involved. Saying otherwise is an attempt to put spin on the process.


So, are the writers still sitting alone at a table somewhere and someone forgot to take pictures and release them?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

mrmike said:


> The writers never left the table. How many times does this need to be said in this thread before people stop getting it wrong?


In order to come back to the table, the writers need to drop their unreasonable demands, such as "closing" the shops of the reality TV and animation writers.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> No, the writers have never believed the studios would fold.


If they don't think the studios are going to fold, what are they doing? Why did they walk out? Of course they think the studios will fold.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> The writers do not stand to make hundreds of billions from their demands


The quote was "in the decades to come". How many years do you think that it will take for the writers' demands to add up to $100B?


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> In order to come back to the table, the writers need to drop their unreasonable demands, such as "closing" the shops of the reality TV and animation writers.


The writers cannot drop those two demands without also dropping four others which are core to the issues of the strike; the studios explicitly lumped them together in the ultimatum. There have been reports of at least one back-channel effort to drop the jurisdictional demands rebuffed by the studios, though, to be fair, the WGA leadership might also have turned it down had the studios not done so first. Publicly, the WGA has indicated they will negotiate on any of the six, but the AMPTP has consistently said they would not talk again without the WGA's prior agreement with the AMPTP's position in full on all six points.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> In order to come back to the table, the writers need to drop their unreasonable demands, such as "closing" the shops of the reality TV and animation writers.


1) That's far from the only point the AMPTP has issue with.
2) Reality and Animation have been in the proposal *since the beginning* (as they were in the last two contract proposals before they were negotiated out. Key words being "negotiated out".)
3) There are no demands. There are proposals. If the AMPTP has counter-proposals, they are welcome to put them on the table. They have not done so, merely delivered an ultimatum that they will not even discuss large portions of the proposal.

(See The contract proposal for the full details)

Wander over to United Hollywood if you're interested in reading what people who actually make a living doing this stuff have to say about all this.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> In order to come back to the table, the writers need to drop their unreasonable demands, such as "closing" the shops of the reality TV and animation writers.


...except that's not what they want. They just want animation and reality writers to have the option of being in WGA.


Amnesia said:


> If they don't think the studios are going to fold, what are they doing? Why did they walk out? Of course they think the studios will fold.


You really haven't been paying attention, have you? It has never been about making the studios fold, it has been about making the studios come to the table and negotiate in good faith. Making the other side fold has always been the studios' tactic.


Amnesia said:


> The quote was "in the decades to come". How many years do you think that it will take for the writers' demands to add up to $100B?


Probably centuries. The writers aren't asking for much, just something. The studios want to give them almost nothing, and then decide whether they actually have to pay that almost nothing.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

smak said:


> You can say that about all strikes, but they eventually get settled, and I'll bet that in a lot of strike situations, management thinks exactly like you do, in the fact that the workers will be much further hit than them, and they can wait them out. But I'm pretty sure that most of them don't get settled by giving management everything they want.


And I'm pretty sure that workers don't get everything they want, either. And, IMO, and from my personal experience, the deal that gets everyone back to work is much better for the employers than the employees


> And writers can't get other jobs?


Well, good for them. If they can get other jobs that will support them at or above their current lifestyle, what's the big deal? So what if they've lost $120 million in salary; Barnes & Noble and Starbucks will keep them afloat!

I'm not saying there will be an epidemic of ex-writer pan-handlers in 6-9 months; I'm just saying that the economic impact is going to hurt the writers more than the studios.



> And I'm assuming that Fox puts 24 on the air to make Fox money. If not putting 24 on the air would make them money by not having to pay for it's production, then it would not be on TV.
> 
> Fox is in the business to make money. They don't put shows on the air that they know will lose them money. Therefore, not having 24 on the air this year will lose Fox money.
> 
> -smak-


That's not a real 'loss', nothing was risked, so nothing was 'lost'. You can't put that on a balance sheet; you can't say "if I invested in A, I would have made $x; but I didn't invest, so I actually lost $y" - well, actually, the Hollywood accountants would try to count that as a loss, with their 'special' accounting; but in the real world that's not a loss, that's a missed opportunity.

But it's a risk they calculated for; and when the strike ends they will still be able to produce 24, and then sell the DVDs 9 months later, and in the meantime they're still selling advertising on the network at that time, maybe they are not selling for as much, but they are still making money.

I'm not saying that the studios are 'right' and the writers are 'wrong'; I definitely think the studios are the ones forcing this to go as long as it will, the studios could end this quickly if they really wanted to. Which is another reason I think that the studios are not and will not suffer much, because if that was the case, they would end this...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The Hollywood bean-counters thought the writers would, as usual, fold long ago. They also know that the hundreds of millions they are losing now are worth it if they can succeed at screwing the writers out of hundreds of billions in the decades to come. But as they come to realize that probably ain't gonna happen, their task changes to trying to find a way to back themselves out of their corner while making it sound like they're still winning.


We can just take that paragraph, and rewrite it.... 
_
The self-centered writers thought the studios would fold long ago. They also know that the money they're losing now is worth it if they can succeed in extorting the studios out of hundreds of billions in the decades to come. But as the writers come to realize that probably isn't going to happen, their task changes to trying to find a way to back themselves out of their corner while making it sound like they're still winning.
_
Okay?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> You could say the exact same thing from the other point of view:
> 
> The Hollywood pen-jockeys thought the studios would, as usual, fold long ago. They also know that the hundreds of millions they are losing now are worth it if they can succeed at screwing the studios out of hundreds of billions in the decades to come. But as they come to realize that probably ain't gonna happen, their task changes to trying to find a way to back themselves out of their corner while making it sound like they're still winning.


Gosh, I'm sorry; I posted my reply before I saw yours.

Great minds think alike, though.

I fear, though, that our colleagues might be missing the point: Polluting the thread with meaningless, one-sided position statements doesn't serve any useful purpose.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

mrmike said:


> The writers never left the table.


The writers now realize that they need to do something to make the studios come back to the table.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> You really haven't been paying attention, have you? It has never been about making the studios fold, it has been about making the studios come to the table and negotiate in good faith. Making the other side fold has always been the studios' tactic.


I think *you*'re the one not paying attention...and trying to get the company to fold has always been unions' tactic---that's what strikes are all about. If they wanted to negotiate in good faith, they could have continued to work under the old contract during negotiations.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> ...except that's not what they want. They just want animation and reality writers to have the option of being in WGA.


OK, you really haven't been paying attention.

Here are the WGA's demands. Look for the section on "Jurisdiction and Reality Television". It clearly states that they want jurisdiction. And look at the section for "Jurisdiction and Animation". It says that they want to force animators to be in a union (by saying that they want jurisdiction over all animators who are not in another union). That's a closed shop.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The writers do not stand to make hundreds of billions from their demands


Then explain your assertion earlier that the studios stand to lose hundreds of billions. *You* put forward that dollar amount.


----------



## jhausmann (Aug 21, 2002)

mrmike said:


> 1)
> 3) There are no demands. There are proposals. If the AMPTP has counter-proposals, they are welcome to put them on the table. They have not done so, merely delivered an ultimatum that they will not even discuss large portions of the proposal.
> 
> (See The contract proposal for the full details)
> ...


Umm, one can pretty much determine which are proposals and which are demands by simply applying the following: proposals are negotiable and demands are not negotiable.

It would appear that the writers have only demands.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

mrmike said:


> 1)
> Wander over to United Hollywood if you're interested in reading what people who actually make a living doing this stuff have to say about all this.


Interesting reading. Thanks for the link.



> By Ed Decter (WGA member, Pet Rock owner) Regarding the windfall profits made by American Idol due to the writers strike.
> 
> I imagine my dad would have asked me who the "guy in charge" at Fox was. I would have told him the guy's name is Peter Chernin. My dad would have said, "He must be laughing all the way to the bank."
> 
> ...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

bicker said:


> Then explain your assertion earlier that the studios stand to lose hundreds of billions. *You* put forward that dollar amount.


That was a slip, sorry. I meant to say screw the writers out of their share of hundreds of billions.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Carry your correction over to my reply, then.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Variety is reporting that the DGA has reached a tentative deal with the AMPTP...


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> Variety is reporting that the DGA has reached a tentative deal with the AMPTP...


It certainly sounds promising.



> The towns focus will immediately shift to whether the terms of the DGA deal will be acceptable to the WGA. A group of moderate writers have been pushing in recent days for the leaders not to reject the DGA deal out of hand but optimists believe that the DGA deal will be enough of a breakthrough on new-media questions to pave the way for a WGA pact.


Well let's hope so. I hope they add a "no strike clause".


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

I'm not an expert on these things, but the fact that the AMPTP are giving the director's distribution points instead of producer's points is a major breakthru.

No more fuzzy Hollywood math when figuring out payments.

Also, 

"Companies will be contractually obligated to give us access to their deals and data, enabling us to monitor this provision and prepare for our next negotiation. This access is new and unprecedented.

If the exhibitor or retailer is part of the producer's corporate family, we have improved provisions for challenging any suspect transactions."

No more shady below market deals between Fox and FX etc, which screws the points people out of significant dollars.

-smak-


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

smak said:


> I'm not an expert on these things, but the fact that the AMPTP are giving the director's distribution points instead of producer's points is a major breakthru.
> 
> No more fuzzy Hollywood math when figuring out payments.
> 
> ...


Wow...this was one of the six points the AMPTP termed completely non-negoitiable in the December 7 ultimatum to the writers. If this is true, and even as a starting point can be brought back under discussion with the WGA, those moderates in the WGA might want to make sure everybody listens.


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> Wow...this was one of the six points the AMPTP termed completely non-negoitiable in the December 7 ultimatum to the writers. If this is true, and even as a starting point can be brought back under discussion with the WGA, those moderates in the WGA might want to make sure everybody listens.


Yeah the problem with the AMPTP vs WGA now is it has gone beyond business/money and in to ego, and who has the bigger nuts. The negotiations and the constant pissing match back and forth has escalated a dangerous level. This did not happen with the DGA that is why I think they got such a good deal. One I am not sure the WGA can replicate.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> Wow...this was one of the six points the AMPTP termed completely non-negoitiable in the December 7 ultimatum to the writers.


That shows the power of a negotiation between _reasonable _parties. :up:


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

bicker said:


> That shows the power of a negotiation between _reasonable _parties. :up:


Right, because of course in the last 2 months the scary and mysteroius and unprofitable internet, all of a sudden became clear to them.

-smak-


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

No, rather the producers and directors are reasonable negotiators.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

When the producers put on the table, everything they took off the table for the writers, things can get done.

-smak-


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

The funny thing about the "good faith" argument is as far as I recall the WGA essentially planned this strike. They scuttled normal renewal negotiations long before it got here, or at the very least hindered them to the point of this all being inevitable. Most labor contracts are redone long in advance of previous expiration. 

Certainly an amicable agreement could have been reached before the strike ever happened. If both sides were negotiating in good faith. However, it was fait acompli that one side wanted to see a strike, it was never going to happen.

I know ultimately the general public cares about tv shows and not about writers, and they don't really care who writes them. The WGA's position weakens with every day that passes. They should really appear more motivated to get this to end. If they just ride it out, their ultimate end is their dissolution.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

under 2000 / day is nuts, i wouldnt even get out of bed for that if i was them


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

smak said:


> When the producers put on the table, everything they took off the table for the writers, things can get done.


What are you talking about?

Did the DGA ask for increased control over reality shows and animation? What about sympathy strikes? I didn't see that in the reports of the DGA deal. Oh, you must be talking about the DGA's demand that the studios don't do business with entities that don't offer the same benefits as the studios. No wait---the DGA didn't ask for that.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> Oh, you must be talking about the DGA's demand that the studios don't do business with entities that don't offer the same benefits as the studios. No wait---the DGA didn't ask for that.


The DGA actually has many of the same semi-closed shop policies that WGA or SAG do. Wikipedia's DGA page offers a decent summary:


> The agreements signed between the Guild and film production companies make various stipulations covering pay and working conditions for Guild members, and require that all those employed in the relevant fields on a film made by that company are Guild members. Guild members are generally prevented from working for companies that have not signed an agreement with the DGA. This sometimes leads production companies which have no such agreement to form new companies, purely for the purpose of making a particular film, which do then sign an agreement with the DGA.
> 
> Not all Hollywood directors are DGA members. Notable directors such as George Lucas, Quentin Tarantino, and Robert Rodriguez have refused membership or resigned from the guild over specific differences. Those who aren't members of the guild are unable to direct for the larger movie studios, which are signatories to the guild's agreements that all directors must be guild members.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Fassade said:


> The DGA actually has many of the same semi-closed shop policies that WGA or SAG do.


They sure do. However, that had nothing to do with the part of my post that you quoted.

I was referring to the WGA's demand that the studios not be allowed to sell parts of their businesses unless the buyers agree to the terms of the contract between the studios and the WGA. As far as I know, the DGA has not made any similar demands.

And the WGA is looking for increased jurisdiction over new areas (particularly reality TV and animation). As far as I know, the DGA did not demand any new jurisdiction.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

Thanks for the clarification. By "don't do business" I presumed you meant "do not hire or conduct business operations with," not "do not sell off pieces of the company," as the former seemed more in tune with many of your other posts about closed shops. From your follow up, I now see (hopefully correctly) that you are referring to the "Jurisdiction and Work Preservation" portion of the WGA proposals, which, incidentally, I agree with you are iffy at best.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

Amnesia, I'm curious: What do you do for a living?


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> Did the DGA ask for increased control over reality shows and animation? What about sympathy strikes? I didn't see that in the reports of the DGA deal. Oh, you must be talking about the DGA's demand that the studios don't do business with entities that don't offer the same benefits as the studios. No wait---the DGA didn't ask for that.


C'mon, we all know the main sticking point in the negotiations was internet revenue. Revenue that the studio bosses said they needed years to study to figure out what their effect would be.

Now all of a sudden, they've figured out the effect, and can offer the DGA residuals from those revenues.

The problem the studios had, is their years of study doesn't really work in a corporate world, where you have to tell people what you've earned, and what you project to earn.

NBC announced last week that they would make 1 billion in 2008. That's just NBC. How much will all the combined networks and studios make?

July 07

AMPTP president Nick Counter said he believes any new action on new-media compensation should be delayed three years -- until the next WGA contract in 2010 -- to allow time for a formal study of the relevant landscape to be commissioned and completed.

Jan 08

At the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this week, NBC Universal's president of Integrated Media Beth Comstock said she expects her company to hit $1 billion in digital revenue by the end of this year.

Ooopsie.

-smak-


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

smak said:


> C'mon, we all know the main sticking point in the negotiations was internet revenue.


You said:


smak said:


> When the producers put on the table, everything they took off the table for the writers, things can get done.


What the studios took off the table for the writers were jurisdiction over reality TV and animation, control over who the studios are allowed to sell parts of their business to, etc. The negotiations over Internet revenue were always on the table. The problem is that the WGA wasn't willing to just discuss those points---they insisted on adding in other issues that the studios weren't willing to discuss.

The studios have always been willing to talk to the WGA about the same issues that they discussed with the DGA.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Why aren't animation writers allowed to be in the WGA? The Simpson writers are.

And I don't really buy that it's a major sticking point. The major sticking point imho was something that the AMPTP gave to the DGA, distribution gross. That's something that as far as I know hasn't been given away in the history of Hollywood.

Things change. Animated movies are pretty much written the same as live action movies. Why can't they be in the WGA Why are the director's of reality shows in the DGA, but the writers (and we all know there are writers right?), aren't in the WGA?

All of these things, the animation and reality writers, the internet revenues are a drop in the bucket money wise to the studios.

Like $50 million per year.

-smak-


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

If it is only a drop in the bucket money-wise, the *writers* can just let it go. The reality is that it isn't a drop in the bucket money-wise. It is big money, long-term.

The union wants more power. The union doesn't deserve the power it already has. Good for the studios for standing firm and not granting the union more power. :up:


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

smak said:


> Why aren't animation writers allowed to be in the WGA? _(...)_ Animated movies are pretty much written the same as live action movies. Why can't they be in the WGA Why are the director's of reality shows in the DGA, but the writers (and we all know there are writers right?), aren't in the WGA?


As I understand it from reading the WGA demands, it's not that they're not "allowed" to be in the WGA---it's that they're not *forced* to be in the WGA. In the case of reality TV, that's what precisely the WGA is fighting for.

My read of their animation demands is that if the animator isn't a member of another union, they will be forced to join the WGA.


----------



## Rosincrans (May 4, 2006)

bicker said:


> That shows the power of a negotiation between _reasonable _parties. :up:


The difference is that the AMPTP gave the DGA things that they are not even willing to negotiate with the WGA. ANd here's the reason why-



> PARTIAL LIST OF THE MORE THAN 100 REALITY SHOWS SIGNED TO DGA AGREEMENTS:
> Network/Pay Cable
> Amazing Race
> Americas Funniest Home Videos *
> ...


Link

The difference isn't that the DGA was more reasonable. The difference is that they had more leverage. Almost all movie and TV production (including reality shows) would immediately shut down if there were a DGA strike.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

Amnesia, you've posted a couple times since I asked my question, but seem to have ignored it. What do you do for a living?


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

Rosincrans said:


> The difference isn't that the DGA was more reasonable. The difference is that they had more leverage. Almost all movie and TV production (including reality shows) would immediately shut down if there were a DGA strike.


I agree 110%. The AMPTP has their shortcomings don't get me wrong but the WGA entered negotiations in the middle of 2007 they were already ramped up and prepared to strike unless they got there way. Neither side in this picture smell like roses. Like I said earlier it is now about more then just business it is about ego.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about, but my guess as to why the DGA was able to easily get a deal done while the WGA has not been is this: It must have something to do with the fact that there is generally one director on a project and s/he is not working for Guild minimum. S/He is often the driving force behind the project or is hired specifically for her/his talent and therefore s/he usually has a negotiated contract which includes the director's compensation, so the negotiated minimums in the DGA contract aren't that important. 

This is different from writers, where there are often a dozen nameless, faceless writers on any given show/project who don't really have any negotiating leverage and therefore have Guild-minimum contracts. Therefore, they require that the WGA contract get them good terms, because they have no leverage to negotiate them on their own.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Fleegle said:


> Amnesia, you've posted a couple times since I asked my question, but seem to have ignored it. What do you do for a living?


What difference does that make? Unless any of us in this thread are members of one of the guilds or are otherwise Hollywood insiders with specific knowledge about any of these issues, we're all coming to it as outsiders and putting our own personal biases into it. Whether Amnesia is a contract lawyer or a ditch digger shouldn't have any bearing on the relevancy of his arguments.


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> This is different from writers, where there are often a dozen nameless, faceless writers on any given show/project who don't really have any negotiating leverage and therefore have Guild-minimum contracts. Therefore, they require that the WGA contract get them good terms, because they have no leverage to negotiate them on their own.


I'm afraid this isn't entirely accurate.

Yes, directors have traditionally been the driving creative force behind features (with writers being little more than hired guns) but television is a writer's medium. Virtually all producers on TV are writers ('non-writing producers' are like blue moons, you'll come across them. Rarely).



DevdogAZ said:


> What difference does that make? Unless any of us in this thread are members of one of the guilds or are otherwise Hollywood insiders with specific knowledge about any of these issues, we're all coming to it as outsiders and putting our own personal biases into it.


Though I don't come across writers much (I work in post-production, even then in independent stuff) how things work 'in the biz' isn't well understood by those outside it.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about, but my guess as to why the DGA was able to easily get a deal done while the WGA has not been is this: It must have something to do with the fact that there is generally one director on a project and s/he is not working for Guild minimum. S/He is often the driving force behind the project or is hired specifically for her/his talent and therefore s/he usually has a negotiated contract which includes the director's compensation, so the negotiated minimums in the DGA contract aren't that important.


As a sort-of related aside, the single director per project is a strict DGA rule for which a "team" like the Wachowski Brothers has to apply for an exception. The DGA enforces this rule vigorously both to protect the 'single vision' of a director in features, and to keep others from encroaching on traditional DGA jobs. Robert Rodriguez resigned from the DGA (and subsequently had to give up his next film, with his biggest budget to date, at DGA signatory Paramount) over this when the DGA would not allow Frank Miller to be co-director on Sin City. 


DevdogAZ said:


> This is different from writers, where there are often a dozen nameless, faceless writers on any given show/project who don't really have any negotiating leverage and therefore have Guild-minimum contracts. Therefore, they require that the WGA contract get them good terms, because they have no leverage to negotiate them on their own.


You may be on to something here, but I would also suggest that, writers are involved and paid much earlier -- first, or close to it -- in the production process, where there is a much higher failure rate. Residuals aside, studios tend to pay lower up front here to cap their losses on the large number of projects that never get past this stage. By the time a director gets involved to the point of a contract, the studio is far more confident and more invested in the project, and so can be more open to paying higher than minimums.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

bicker said:


> If it is only a drop in the bucket money-wise, the *writers* can just let it go. The reality is that it isn't a drop in the bucket money-wise. It is big money, long-term.
> 
> The union wants more power. The union doesn't deserve the power it already has. Good for the studios for standing firm and not granting the union more power. :up:


50 million a year is nothing close to big money.

If that 50 million a year increases, it only means that the studios earnings are increasing as well.

The union wants to be paid for their work.

The studios wanted to study the internet's earning potential for 3 years, yet boast all over everywhere about how many billions they are making this year.

Writers are forced to write those little internet shorts that we see for a lot of shows without being paid.

The writer's didn't walk out on a currently running contract. They have every right to assess the current situation, and ask to be paid based on current situations.

-smak-


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

smak said:


> The studios wanted to study the internet's earning potential for 3 years, yet boast all over everywhere about how many billions they are making this year.


Really? The deal they struck with the DGA indicates otherwise.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

smak said:


> 50 million a year is nothing close to big money.


Make up your mind: Either it is, in which case the studios are right to be concerned, or it isn't, in which case the writers are not right to be concerned. Either way, the number support both sides' perspective EQUALLY, and therefore the point I was replying to was no more valid than my objection to it. The money issue is an utter stalemate.



smak said:


> The union wants to be paid for their work.


Another red herring. The union members have been paid for their work. They want to be paid more and have specific payments for specific distribution modes. And the studios are probably even willing to talk about that if the union would drop its power-hungry posturing.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

needo said:


> Really? The deal they struck with the DGA indicates otherwise.


Exactly! What changed? What changed is that they have to report their earnings, they can't continue to say they have no idea what they'll earn from the internet, when you have the person in charge doing an interview at CES bragging about how much they were goint to make in 2008.

-smak-


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

smak said:


> Exactly! What changed? What changed is that they have to report their earnings, they can't continue to say they have no idea what they'll earn from the internet, when you have the person in charge doing an interview at CES bragging about how much they were goint to make in 2008.
> 
> -smak-


That still doesn't mean the earnings can be attributed in any sense to some specific show with some specific group of writers such that somehow proceeds could be paid out.

All it means is their internet division made money.

Certainly there's a good portion of that directly attributed to specific program sales/rentals that could be identified (excluding the studios penchant for hiding numerous "costs" in anything that might otherwise be construed as "profit"). But some of it is very likely not easily attributed. And I believe that's the kist of the comment that was made regarding this.

Still, too, I'm not even sure who to believe anymore regarding how the now-expired contract treated certain items, like paid internet-distributed programming. From what I read of the contract it seemed pretty clear it fell under the same rules as DVD/Videotape payments. But listening to some writers and they claim they have never gotten anything from such paid internet deliveries.

Even thefutoncritic.com summarized the current/expired contract as providing payment for those items.

Specifically:

http://www.thefutoncritic.com/rant.aspx?id=20071101

b. Non-traditional media residuals. WGA members are not compensated for use of their work on cell phones, online streaming, etc. when the user doesn't pay for them. If they do (pay-per-view, video-on-demand, etc.), the residual rate is the same as the home video one - 0.3%. The guild is pressing for the following: "1.2% for features whether streamed or downloaded, 1.2% for TV product when the viewer pays, and 2.0% for post-1984 TV product or 2.5% for pre-1984 TV product when it is free to the viewer."

So as I see it, they already are getting most of this reported internet revenue considered. It's the "free downloads" which are up in the air (as well as wanting to quadruple the revenue rate they get now).

And that point is arguably something that simply is not easy to quantify in order to pay out revenue to the writers for.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

bicker said:


> Make up your mind: Either it is, in which case the studios are right to be concerned, or it isn't, in which case the writers are not right to be concerned. Either way, the number support both sides' perspective EQUALLY, and therefore the point I was replying to was no more valid than my objection to it. The money issue is an utter stalemate.
> 
> Another red herring. The union members have been paid for their work. They want to be paid more and have specific payments for specific distribution modes. And the studios are probably even willing to talk about that if the union would drop its power-hungry posturing.


50 million to thousands of individual people is not the same as 50 million to multinational corporations with 250 billion in revenue.

Your theory about them being paid for their work would also apply to DVD's right? Or TV airings of movies? Or Itunes.

Like I've said before. Les Monves stated that he didn't care whether CSI was watched by 25 million on TV, or by 20 million on TV, and 5 million on the internet, that CBS would be paid the same both ways.

Your theory is, they have a deal for that 25 million, yet if the TV portion of the viewers went down to 0, and the internet portion went up to 25 million, that the writers would be just plain out of luck.

So if in 50 years there are no more movie theaters, and all movies are beamed by satellite into people's homes, then no writers, directors or actors should get paid on them, since their current deal is based on theatrical releases. your home isn't a theater, so no pay for them right?

Who in their right mind, in any profession, wouldn't see the ever increasing writing on the wall, and allow themselves to lose money, by sticking with the status quo?

If the producer's want to say, we're getting rid of residuals on everything, and we're going to go to this new model of payment, then by all means negotiate away.

But how can you argue that paying residuals on some distribution methods, but not others could possibly be fair?

-smak-


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

smak said:


> Your theory is, they have a deal for that 25 million, yet if the TV portion of the viewers went down to 0, and the internet portion went up to 25 million, that the writers would be just plain out of luck.
> 
> So if in 50 years there are no more movie theaters, and all movies are beamed by satellite into people's homes, then no writers, directors or actors should get paid on them, since their current deal is based on theatrical releases. your home isn't a theater, so no pay for them right?


Are you claiming that writers get zero money up front? Are you claiming that writers who were working before the strike weren't getting paid at all?

I should hope not.

So they were getting paid. Not as much as they would like, but they were getting paid. Do you disagree?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> So they were getting paid. Not as much as they would like, but they were getting paid. Do you disagree?


But part of that payment is in the form of residuals, which the studios are trying to negotiate out of existence (by ignoring the shift from reruns to video/DVD and, now, internet), without compensating for it by greater upfront pay.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> Are you claiming that writers get zero money up front? Are you claiming that writers who were working before the strike weren't getting paid at all?
> 
> I should hope not.
> 
> So they were getting paid. Not as much as they would like, but they were getting paid. Do you disagree?


The writers are paid in 2 parts. Up front money and residuals.

How can you take away the residuals without increasing the upfront money?

Would you take that deal?

-smak-


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But part of that payment is in the form of residuals _(...)_


I was responding to smak's comment:


smak said:


> The union wants to be paid for their work.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

dswallow said:


> So as I see it, they already are getting most of this reported internet revenue considered. It's the "free downloads" which are up in the air (as well as wanting to quadruple the revenue rate they get now).
> 
> And that point is arguably something that simply is not easy to quantify in order to pay out revenue to the writers for.


Mysteriously now it must be easy to quantify, since they offered the DGA specific payments for ad supported streaming.

What a few months ago would take them 3 years to figure out, they seem to have figured it out pretty fast.

-smak-


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> I was responding to smak's comment:


When I say that I mean residuals are part of the payment structure for writers. Has been for how long? 50 years? 75 years?

You can't change 1/2 the payment structure without changing the other half.

-smak-


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

So you agree that the union *is* being paid for their work, but wants to be paid more?


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> So you agree that the union *is* being paid for their work, but wants to be paid more?


They want to be paid more on some things, and don't want to be paid less on other things.

I'd suspect that most unions ask for more money when their contract is up.

-smak-


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

smak said:


> 50 million to thousands of individual people is not the same as 50 million to multinational corporations with 250 billion in revenue.


Incorrect. 50 million is 50 million. Also, multinational corporations have thousands of investors.



smak said:


> Your theory about them being paid for their work would also apply to DVD's right?


If anything, my "theory" applies to *work done*, so your point here is irrelevant to what I wrote in that message. Besides, writers don't make DVDs. They make scripts.



smak said:


> Who in their right mind, in any profession, wouldn't see the ever increasing writing on the wall, and allow themselves to lose money, by sticking with the status quo?


Most people in this country get paid for their work. Their employers make money off the results of their work, and keep the profits (or suffer the losses). So the writers are already one-up on most other folks. They don't deserve the power they already have. They surely don't deserve any additional power.



smak said:


> If the producer's want to say, we're getting rid of residuals on everything, and we're going to go to this new model of payment, then by all means negotiate away.


You keep trying to drag the discussion back to residuals when my point isn't about residuals. It's about power. Stick to the topic, at least when you're replying to someone's post. Argue against what I actually write not something easier to argue against.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> So you agree that the union *is* being paid for their work, but wants to be paid more?


No, they are being paid less and less because their residuals on TV reruns aren't being replaced as the reruns are being replaced by New Media and DVD. So what they are asking for is for the reversal in their income to be stopped.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> No, they are being paid less and less _(...)_ So what they are asking for is for the reversal in their income to be stopped.


So you agree that the writers are getting paid, right?
And you agree that they want to get paid more than they are currently getting paid, right?

So you're saying that in addition to those facts you also contend that the contract change that the writers are demanding will *not* increase their compensation?


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

bicker said:


> Most people in this country get paid for their work. Their employers make money off the results of their work, and keep the profits (or suffer the losses). So the writers are already one-up on most other folks. They don't deserve the power they already have. They surely don't deserve any additional power.


They aren't one up on anybody. Their up front pay is directly affected by the residuals they make.

They would be making more up front if they didn't make residuals. Nobody disuptes this.

If the AMPTP's position is to pay residuals to the writers, and residuals have been paid for 75 years, what business is it of any outsider to decide that writer's shouldn't get residuals?

Every industry and it's workers can decide how the people are paid. Just because they get paid differently then steel workers, doesn't mean it's wrong.

Pay people minimum wage and 90% of the profits, or $50 an hour and none of the profits, or with bananas and nuts, who cares as long as both sides agree.

If the AMPTP's position was to not pay residuals, and the writers wouldn't accept it, then they should have never accepted any contract that included residuals, and should go Australia & England for all the talent, and the industry would be exactly the same right?

-smak-


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> So you agree that the writers are getting paid, right?
> And you agree that they want to get paid more than they are currently getting paid, right?
> 
> So you're saying that in addition to those facts you also contend that the contract change that the writers are demanding will *not* increase their compensation?


It will slow the decline in their compensation. They want to continue to get paid what they're getting paid now; the studios want to eliminate a key portion of their compensation.

If internet distribution takes off, it might even return their compensation to the levels it was at twenty years ago, before getting screwed out of video/DVD residuals started eating away at their compensation.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

smak said:


> They would be making more up front if they didn't make residuals. Nobody disuptes this.


Including me, yet you continue to harp on this and ignore the real point I'm making. You're so consistently avoiding my actual point, and continuing to argue against something I'm not saying, that it is becoming annoying. And it is also very telling.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> If internet distribution takes off, it might even return their compensation to the levels it was at twenty years ago, before getting screwed out of video/DVD residuals started eating away at their compensation.


There weren't any DVD residuals 20 years ago. What makes you think that DVD residuals lessened their compensation?

(And your arguments might be taken more seriously if you stuck to facts and eliminated opinions like "screwed out of"---that just makes you sound like a zealot.)


----------



## Rosincrans (May 4, 2006)

Amnesia said:


> (And your arguments might be taken more seriously if you stuck to facts and eliminated opinions like "screwed out of"---that just makes you sound like a zealot.)


Kettle, there's a phone call on line 1. It's the pot.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

With that comment, it seems to me that this thread truly has jumped the shark.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

bicker said:


> With that comment, it seems to me that this thread truly has jumped the shark.


Yeah. No kidding. I'm bored to tears with it but can't stop reading. Once they settle the strike what will all have to fight about? I guess it's back to making fun of "fat" actresses again.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

smak said:


> Mysteriously now it must be easy to quantify, since they offered the DGA specific payments for ad supported streaming.
> 
> What a few months ago would take them 3 years to figure out, they seem to have figured it out pretty fast.
> 
> -smak-


It's not difficult to know how much you receive from selling advertising to appear within the streaming content. But that's not going to represent anything like the entire online revenue, either. Classic online advertising that just happens to be on pages where people are going to get to online streaming content is also revenue producing, but harder to quantify as to it being related to the streaming, and/or related to which programs were streamed.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

dswallow said:


> It's not difficult to know how much you receive from selling advertising to appear within the streaming content. But that's not going to represent anything like the entire online revenue, either. Classic online advertising that just happens to be on pages where people are going to get to online streaming content is also revenue producing, but harder to quantify as to it being related to the streaming, and/or related to which programs were streamed.


But the studios said that they couldn't possibly sit down at the table and discuss payments for ad supported streaming, because they had no idea how to figure out what they earning, and how to figure out how to pay them, and it would take years.

And then they figured it all out with the DGA a few months later.

-smak-


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

bicker said:


> Including me, yet you continue to harp on this and ignore the real point I'm making. You're so consistently avoiding my actual point, and continuing to argue against something I'm not saying, that it is becoming annoying. And it is also very telling.


You say the writers are one up on you and me because they earn residuals on their work, as well as up front payment, but you aren't talking about residuals?

-smak-


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

dswallow said:


> b. Non-traditional media residuals. WGA members are not compensated for use of their work on cell phones, online streaming, etc. when the user doesn't pay for them. If they do (pay-per-view, video-on-demand, etc.), the residual rate is the same as the home video one - 0.3%. The guild is pressing for the following: "1.2% for features whether streamed or downloaded, 1.2% for TV product when the viewer pays, and 2.0% for post-1984 TV product or 2.5% for pre-1984 TV product when it is free to the viewer."


Why are the proposed residuals lower when the viewer pays? (Support for user-paid-but-advertising-free downloads??)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> There weren't any DVD residuals 20 years ago. What makes you think that DVD residuals lessened their compensation?


Because many TV reruns (with significant residuals) have been replaced by DVD sales (without significant residuals). Thus a significant portion of the writers' income has evaporated over the years.

And I say "screwed out of" in the sense that the studios at the time said that video revenue would never amount to anything, but that they would revisit the issue in the future if things changed--which they never did. Which is the exact same tactic they're trying to use on New Media now.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

mattack said:


> Why are the proposed residuals lower when the viewer pays? (Support for user-paid-but-advertising-free downloads??)


Presumably because of the concept of making things up in quantity... "free" content is paid for by whomever purchases the right to broadcast it each time, whereas viewer-paid is, well, per-viewer, and a potentially larger revenue stream. There's also the revenue received by the broadcaster that isn't subject to becoming part of the equation -- commercial advertising fees, for instance -- so the writers are probably factoring in the idea of getting a cut of that, too, in a roundabout way by charging a higher percentage overall.


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

smak said:


> And then they figured it all out with the DGA a few months later.


Yep, it's shocking that when first sitting down at the negotiations table and immediately threatening the other side with a strike yields negative results.

I mean seriously... come pick me up off the floor.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Wow, you nailed the timeline exactly right. 

-smak-


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

smak said:


> Wow, you nailed the timeline exactly right.
> 
> -smak-


I don't know.. as I mentioned a bit back, the Writer's seemingly were intent on striking for a while and thus were not really negotiating in good faith before the strike.

So it amounts to the same thing. It is not like the Producers were not aware of their agenda. it is not like we all did not know about the likelyhood of a strike long before it happened. Why do you think that was?

I think it was because the Writers wanted to strike. So they essentially were sitting down to negotiate saying they were going to strike.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Because many TV reruns (with significant residuals) have been replaced by DVD sales (without significant residuals). Thus a significant portion of the writers' income has evaporated over the years.


Do you have any numbers showing a real drop in revenue from traditional syndication? Growing up, there was a lot of Gilligan's Island, I Love Lucy, and Leave it to Beaver. Now, there is a lot of Simpsons, Seinfeld, and Everybody Loves Raymond. That writer's aren't getting much from DVD sales doesn't necessarily imply reruns aren't earning them the amount they expected.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

vman41 said:


> Do you have any numbers showing a real drop in revenue from traditional syndication? Growing up, there was a lot of Gilligan's Island, I Love Lucy, and Leave it to Beaver. Now, there is a lot of Simpsons, Seinfeld, and Everybody Loves Raymond. That writer's aren't getting much from DVD sales doesn't necessarily imply reruns aren't earning them the amount they expected.


The big money wasn't in syndication (for the writers), it was in network reruns. Network reruns are a LOT less common now than they were 20 years ago.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The big money wasn't in syndication (for the writers), it was in network reruns. Network reruns are a LOT less common now than they were 20 years ago.


I was trying to reconcile this... As if you look at the landscape it seems like re-runs are more prevelant than ever. But there has been a major shift. Cable networks now do a lot of the re-run purchasing, and they are covering the whole country but smaller net audiences. In the old days, as you mentioned, the reruns were the bread and butter of the local stations in all the markets. Now I don't know who watches those channels but the ratings have to be tiny fractions of what they once were, meaning the demand for these re-runs on a market by market basis is almost non-existent.

I am curious though, how lucrative deals the writers had for this kind of stuff. Certainly in most cases nobody but the producers ever made money on re-runs. Only a few actors have ever gotten a piece of that pie, and usually only those who were producers. Other actors have demanded higher salaries because of lucrative re-run packages, but never got a direct piece of the pie.

So I guess I wonder why/how the Writers managed to negotiate contracts previously where they got any meaningful piece of that pie, when no other guild managed to get any of it, for the most part.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

marksman said:


> So I guess I wonder why/how the Writers managed to negotiate contracts previously where they got any meaningful piece of that pie, when no other guild managed to get any of it, for the most part.


It was how the studios got out of paying the writers full-value up-front.

I can't remember for sure, but I think the residual on the first network rerun was in the $6,000 range. Back in the day, shows used to rerun two or three times on the networks routinely; now, reruns are much less common and some shows (e.g., Lost) almost never have reruns. That's a significant loss of income for the writers, which should be replaced by what has replaced the reruns...DVD and internet.

Or, of course, just pay the writers up-front, but the studios would never go for that.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> _(...)_ and some shows (e.g., Lost) almost never have reruns. That's a significant loss of income for the writers, which should be replaced by what has replaced the reruns...DVD and internet.


So, your contention is that the _Lost_ writers are making the guild-mandated minimums? If not, then I'm not sure why you believe that they are "losing" income from reruns---perhaps their individual contracts have larger upfront compensation.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

When Lost started out they showed reruns during the season. Now they don't.

I really doubt that anything in the contract of the last 2 years gave them extra money due to the fact that they weren't going to show any reruns.

-smak-


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

LOS ANGELES - In a major step toward ending a 12-week walkout, Hollywood's striking writers on Tuesday dropped their demand for extended jurisdiction over reality and animation work and agreed to extend informal talks with Hollywood production companies, even as they decided not to picket next month's Grammy Awards telecast.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/business/media/23strike.html?ref=business


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

They're starting to break....


----------



## nrrhgreg (Aug 30, 2003)

Hopefully this thing will be over in a couple of weeks now and I can get my last 6 episodes of Scrubs and have it end the way it's supposed to.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

Amnesia, I've asked several times now, but you continue to ignore me. Will yu tell us what you do for a living? If you won't tell us, at least acknowledge that you've seen this question and do not want to answer it.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Fleegle said:


> Amnesia, I've asked several times now, but you continue to ignore me. Will yu tell us what you do for a living? If you won't tell us, at least acknowledge that you've seen this question and do not want to answer it.


Why do you care? What's going on in that mind of yours Fleegle? WAYT?


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

nrrhgreg said:


> Hopefully this thing will be over in a couple of weeks now and I can get my last 6 episodes of Scrubs and have it end the way it's supposed to.





> starting to break....


Oh is the strike still on? Next month we are going to simultaneously have Big Brother, American Idol, Project Runway, and Survivor all airing together. Not to mention some excellent new series on Science Channel and some of the other smaller networks who have taken advantage of the strike. Breaking Bad anyone?

Can't say I've missed the writers all that much. Yeah it'll be nice to have the 4 or 5 decent dramas/sitcoms back on the air, but beyond that? Meh. The writers strike really didn't hurt me nearly as much as they'd have hoped. Sorry guys. Don't let the doorknob hit you when you come back to work. :down:


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

bareyb said:


> Why do you care? What's going on in that mind of yours Fleegle? WAYT?


Agreed. I've asked Fleegle this before as well, because I can't see any reason why this is relevant to the conversation. Either Amnesia has inside knowledge about the workings of the entertainment industry or he doesn't. And if he doesn't, the fact that he might be a stock broker or an auto mechanic or an IT tech shouldn't matter at all.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

vman41 said:


> Do you have any numbers showing a real drop in revenue from traditional syndication? Growing up, there was a lot of Gilligan's Island, I Love Lucy, and Leave it to Beaver. Now, there is a lot of Simpsons, Seinfeld, and Everybody Loves Raymond. That writer's aren't getting much from DVD sales doesn't necessarily imply reruns aren't earning them the amount they expected.


I don't have the specific numbers, but I'm pretty sure that the prices for syndicated reruns peaked about five years ago and have dropped sharply since then. IIRC, the deals were getting increasingly larger and the salaries of sitcom stars were going up just as quickly. Then, suddenly the networks started showing new content during the summer, the TV on DVD craze started to take off, and the internet started being a viable way to catch missed episodes of shows, and suddenly the networks were finding that reruns (whether network or syndicated) were not nearly as profitable as they used to be, so they basically stopped showing them, or stopped paying nearly as much for the rights to show them.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

I hope this strike goes on a little longer. This season is shot anyways and some damage has already been done to the fall season. Even with most of the shows I watch in reruns or off the air, I still can't manage to make any progress clearing out my TDL's on either of my Tivo's.


----------



## Sadara (Sep 27, 2006)

Thanks to the strike my over all desire to watch TV has gone down drastically. We're getting more projects done around the house, spend loads more time with our kids. I look for the news each day, maybe one or two shows to "wind down" to, but even when TV is back in the normal swing of things, we'll be axing a great many shows from our Season Pass Manager.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

bareyb said:


> The writers strike really didn't hurt me nearly as much as they'd have hoped. Sorry guys. Don't let the doorknob hit you when you come back to work. :down:


You still don't get it.
The writers' goal is not and never has been to hurt you, the TV consumer, with their strike.
The goal of the strike is to hurt the _producers_, to force them to bargain with the writers. The shows that you are watching now, instead of new scripted network television, are mostly produced by non-AMPTP houses. To the extent that AMPTP produced television is replaced by non-AMPTP shows, the writers have effectively cut into AMPTP members' revenue streams and their strike begins to have an impact. The question is how long AMPTP will try to wait it out, while losses mount and while their customers - the networks - start getting angry about the millions of dollars in make-good ads and free air time they have to give away because ratings numbers are so far off from what was promised at upfronts.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

AJRitz said:


> The goal of the strike is to hurt the _producers_, to force them to bargain with the writers.


How does the strike hurt the producers? IMaybe you mean the studios' stockholders?


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> How does the strike hurt the producers? IMaybe you mean the studios' stockholders?


Um - AMPTP = Alliance of Motion Picture and Television *Producers*.

Any damage to the studios or their stockholders is the direct result of folks they rely on for content playing games with the negotiations. Frankly, the studios can work around the strike to some extent, choosing to order more non-scripted content. Producers, on the other hand, who don't have any new content to sell to studios are left with bills to pay and increasingly pinched revenue streams.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

AJRitz said:


> You still don't get it.


Pot, meet kettle.


> The question is how long AMPTP will try to wait it out, while losses mount and while their customers - the networks - start getting angry about the millions of dollars in make-good ads and free air time they have to give away because ratings numbers are so far off from what was promised at upfronts.


You do know that the networks are members of the AMPTP, right? Is this like the Coke commercials, where the Brand-Manager for Coke wants the Coke Corporate lawers to sue Coke Zero for stealing their recipe?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

AJRitz said:


> Um - AMPTP = Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers.


Yes, I know what AMPTP stands for.

But the WGA is picketing studios/networks. I don't see Bad Robot or Wolf Films on that list. Presumably they're picketing the places they want to hurt, right? Isn't that the whole idea of picketing?

And since studios/networks are public companies, their target must be the owners of the studios---they're the ones who would get financially hurt by a labor action (ignoring, of course, all the non-production workers and the rest of the LA economy).


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> And since studios/networks are public companies, their target must be the owners of the studios---they're the ones who would get financially hurt by a labor action (ignoring, of course, all the non-production workers and the rest of the LA economy).


Yup. Just like people were really pissed off at the Union Carbide stockholders for Bhopal or the Enron stockholders for that little mess.

When will the free-market-at-all-costs corporations-can-do-no-wrong-but-labour-sucks whack-a-doos realize that sometimes the whole is different than the sum of the parts out here in the real world (tm).


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

AJRitz said:


> The shows that you are watching now, instead of new scripted network television, are mostly produced by non-AMPTP houses.


Is this true? Are the reality shows not produced by the same people who produce regular scripted fare? I don't claim to know much about this, but I would think that just as the studios are finding non-scripted content to fill their airwaves, wouldn't the production companies also be trying to put their assets to work by filming non-scripted shows?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

mrmike said:


> Yup. Just like people were really pissed off at the Union Carbide stockholders for Bhopal or the Enron stockholders for that little mess.


You're confused.

Yes, it's possible that the union is upset at the decisions made by the studio executives, but their actions are designed to hurt the studio shareholders.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Sadara said:


> Thanks to the strike my over all desire to watch TV has gone down drastically. We're getting more projects done around the house, spend loads more time with our kids. I look for the news each day, maybe one or two shows to "wind down" to, but even when TV is back in the normal swing of things, we'll be axing a great many shows from our Season Pass Manager.


I agree with this. Ironically, I have become more discriminating in my TV choices.
You would think the opposite would be true and we would settle for anything to watch. I am reading more, Netflixing more, going out to movies more. I like only having a few season passes. It's like decluttering my life.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> Yes, it's possible that the union is upset at the decisions made by the studio executives, but their actions are designed to hurt the studio shareholders.


And the UC boycott after Bhopal hurt the stockholders too. What's your point (Other than water is wet, the sky is blue, and most media outlets are publicly held?)

[edit: clarification: What action would you have someone in this position take which would exert any influence on the process and would not harm stockholders?]


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

mrmike said:


> And the UC boycott after Bhopal hurt the stockholders too. What's your point?


Never heard of Bhopal. And when I think of Enron, I think of people being upset at the company execs.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> Never heard of Bhopal.


You've never heard of one of the most significant industrial disasters ever? Wow. Just wow. It killed between 3000 and 5000 people (and thousands more later died from complications arising from the event). Maybe I should have said something about Tylenol instead? Maybe I'm just too bloody old?


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> Never heard of Bhopal. And when I think of Enron, I think of people being upset at the company execs.


Bhopal disaster



> The Bhopal disaster took place in the early hours of the morning of December 3, 1984, in the heart of the city of Bhopal in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh. A Union Carbide subsidiary pesticide plant released 40 tonnes of methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas, killing between 2500 and 5000 people.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

mrmike said:


> What action would you have someone in this position take which would exert any influence on the process and would not harm stockholders?


Simple---those individuals who are unhappy with the proposed compensation should quit and find other jobs where the compensation offers meet their needs.

Those individuals who are content with the proposed compensation should continue to work.

If the company finds that they are unable to hire the quantity or quality of workers for their projects, they will be forced to increase the offer.

This method solves many problems---it's better for the industry as a whole since it doesn't put massive numbers of people out of work simultaneously, since each individual will have their own point at what compensation they want/need. It's better for individual workers as well since it allows each to determine for themselves the compensation level at which they choose to work (instead of being forced to either work or not work at the whim of the union majority).


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> Simple---those individuals who are unhappy with the proposed compensation should quit and find other jobs where the compensation offers meet their needs.


Ah yes. The old "take this job and shove it" tactic. Sadly, the pebbles don't get much of an influence bump in this scenario. Now, some of them could join together and walk out en mass and agree not to work for anyone who won't give them better compensation. That would be a bigger influence. Wait. That sounds familiar.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

mrmike said:


> Now, some of them could join together and walk out en mass and agree not to work for anyone who won't give them better compensation. That would be a bigger influence. Wait. That sounds familiar.


I don't the whole "en mass" thing.

Why do people have to make job decisions together? People's compensation needs are individual.

Let's say that you and I are both...oh, I don't know...auto mechanics. (And no, Fleegle, that's just an example.) You decide that you're not happy with your compensation and want more money. You go to the boss and she says "no.". Now you can either continue to work at the old compensation or leave for another job. If you look around, you may or may not be able to find another auto mechanic job at the salary you want. Perhaps you'll have to leave the field entirely...or maybe accept the lower compensation if you want to work as a mechanic. That's life.

But I don't see why you would need to drag me---your fellow mechanic---into it. Maybe I'm content with my compensation. Hell---maybe I already get paid more because I'm simply better at my job. But the point is that your actions should reflect your compensation needs and mine will reflect mine.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> I don't the whole "en mass" thing.
> 
> Why do people have to make job decisions together? People's compensation needs are individual.
> 
> ...


I walk up to you. I say "Hey, you happy?". You say "No, man". I say "Hey, if we both go to the boss and ask for changes, we have more bargaining power". I'm not dragging anyone.*** If you say "Yeah man, I'm like a pig in slop" I'll ask other folks (or not). In the meantime, You can stay. You can get another job somewhere else. You can go park cars for a living if you want to instead. That's life. Apart from your (IMHO completely irrational) general dislike of collective bargaining what's wrong with that? Where is the coercion in this scenario? I get that you'd rather have one man fight against the billions of dollars in a mega-national-multicorp. It's easier to ignore the one man that way. Just like it's easy to ignore the fact that the average shareholder has as much say in what Paramount does as a shotglass full of warm spit does on the Atlantic Ocean.

*** (BTW: Neither is the WGA. You don't have to work for them to write. You don't have to sell to the big producers to write (See Worldwide Pants). You can go FiCore if you used to like the WGA and don't anymore. etc. etc.)


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

bareyb said:


> Oh is the strike still on? Next month we are going to simultaneously have Big Brother, American Idol, Project Runway, and Survivor all airing together.


Wow I am in the complete opposite boat. I have really missed the writers. I cannot stand reality TV with a passion. I wish it was never invented and as soon as I hear someone is a fan of some illiterate TV (Oops! I mean reality TV) show I usually mentally subtract 100 IQ points. I get enough reality all day at work and at home I don't need reality on my TV.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> I don't the whole "en mass" thing.
> 
> Why do people have to make job decisions together? People's compensation needs are individual.
> 
> ...


A union only happens when a majority of the workers decide they want to gain power by joining together. Unions don't happen when workers are happy with their compensation. Unions happen when workers get together because they are unhappy with their compensation and use their collective power to negotiate a better deal. I still don't understand your objection to individuals choosing to negotiate together because they believe it will get them a better deal.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

mrmike said:


> I walk up to you. I say "Hey, you happy?". You say "No, man". I say "Hey, if we both go to the boss and ask for changes, we have more bargaining power".


I still don't get it. For all we know, I'm getting 20% more than you---I'm just better at my job and my compensation reflects that. And not only can our compensation be different, but perhaps our needs are different too. Maybe you have two kids about to enter college and you need money to pay for that...and your current compensation doesn't give you enough left over to do so.

Fine---if you can't find the compensation you need at this place, find a company that will give it to you, find a new job, or reduce your expectations.
But don't drag me into it. I have no part in salary discussions between you and your boss, unless I'm maybe the HR manager (Again Fleegle: that's just an example.)


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

bigpuma said:


> I still don't understand your objection to individuals choosing to negotiate together because they believe it will get them a better deal.


Because this so-called better deal removes the individuality from compensation.

Take, for example, the case of the Hollywood writer who was perfectly content with the old contract (And I'm sure there were many.) Maybe he was just glad to be finally writing for a living instead of waiting tables. He is now out of work because the majority of his fellow union members wanted more.

Or take the example of the UAW. My (admitted limited) understanding of their contract is that firing and compensation is based on seniority, not quality of work. That's not right. That doesn't motivate individual effort. That's a recipe for complacency, not excellence.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

mrmike said:


> (BTW: Neither is the WGA. You don't have to work for them to write. _(...)_You can go FiCore if you used to like the WGA and don't anymore. etc. etc.)


If you go "FiCore" you still need to pay your dues to the union. You still need to belong to the union.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

bareyb said:


> Why do you care? What's going on in that mind of yours Fleegle? WAYT?


I'm fairly positive that he's involved with the AMPTP in some way. His refusal to acknowledge my question make me all the more sure that I'm correct.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

needo said:


> Wow I am in the complete opposite boat. I have really missed the writers. I cannot stand reality TV with a passion. I wish it was never invented and as soon as I hear someone is a fan of some illiterate TV (Oops! I mean reality TV) show I usually mentally subtract 100 IQ points. I get enough reality all day at work and at home I don't need reality on my TV.


While I agree with you about (un)reality TV, I haven't really missed the writers much, for the simple reason that TV was turning to crap BEFORE the strike. The wall-to-wall (un)reality shows, the lack of originality, and the mediocre shows? They all started long before the writers walked off.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Because this so-called better deal removes the individuality from compensation.


Not necessarily but so what if that's what the employees want.



> Take, for example, the case of the Hollywood writer who was perfectly content with the old contract (And I'm sure there were many.) Maybe he was just glad to be finally writing for a living instead of waiting tables. He is now out of work because the majority of his fellow union members wanted more.


The majority of the union has to vote to strike. If he is so unhappy about being in this union he has the right to leave and find work elsewhere. There is a reason they are unionized. They chose to unionize.



> Or take the example of the UAW. My (admitted limited) understanding of their contract is that firing and compensation is based on seniority, not quality of work. That's not right. That doesn't motivate individual effort. That's a recipe for complacency, not excellence.


Just because you don't like the terms of the contract doesn't mean the union and the employer shouldn't be allowed to sign a contract. You may not like the effect of the contract but the employer and union liked it enough that they both decided to sign it. That is all that matters to me. They can decide on whatever terms they want as far as I am concerned. I am wondering why you care what other people are agreeing to that doesn't involve you?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mrmike said:


> *** (BTW: Neither is the WGA. You don't have to work for them to write. You don't have to sell to the big producers to write (See Worldwide Pants). You can go FiCore if you used to like the WGA and don't anymore. etc. etc.)


That's a completely ridiculous argument. Of course you have to belong to the WGA if you want to write. Yes, technically you can do some writing without being a member, but those situations are not the norm. For the most part, if you want to write in Hollywood, you've got to be a member of the union. And screw you if you were happy with your job and compensation before. You're now screwed because you have no choice in the matter.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> Because this so-called better deal removes the individuality from compensation.


Not really, if you aren't any good at writing you won't find work. Try it, go join the WGA and see how fast the paychecks come rolling in.



Amnesia said:


> Take, for example, the case of the Hollywood writer who was perfectly content with the old contract (And I'm sure there were many.) Maybe he was just glad to be finally writing for a living instead of waiting tables. He is now out of work because the majority of his fellow union members wanted more.


Unions can't force members not to cross the picket line. Members choose not to cross, because they see the big picture. If the strike goes on too long you will see members crossing the picket line.



Amnesia said:


> Or take the example of the UAW. My (admitted limited) understanding of their contract is that firing and compensation is based on seniority, not quality of work. That's not right. That doesn't motivate individual effort. That's a recipe for complacency, not excellence.


If you don't like unions then don't belong to one. It is really that simple.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

bigpuma said:


> The majority of the union has to vote to strike. If he is so unhappy about being in this union he has the right to leave and find work elsewhere. There is a reason they are unionized. They chose to unionize.


Yet another ridiculous argument. While it may be true that they chose to unionize way back when the WGA was first started, it doesn't mean that all the current members chose that path. They simply didn't have a choice because that's what you HAVE to do if you want to be part of the industry. And we've all heard the stories of the lone dissenter who gets ostracized and ridiculed for speaking his mind. Do you think the majority of people who disagree with the union's tactics would dare speak up when the see how their peers who express their displeasure are treated?


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> I still don't get it. For all we know, I'm getting 20% more than you---I'm just better at my job and my compensation reflects that.


In my scenario I asked you. You said you were unhappy (Reading is fundamental).



Amnesia said:


> But don't drag me into it. I have no part in salary discussions between you and your boss, unless I'm maybe the HR manager (Again Fleegle: that's just an example.)


Again. No dragging. You seem hung up on a coercive factor that's entirely in your head. Howabout re-reading and answering what I actually wrote (not to channel Bicker, but there you have it).

Also, this constant "I'm just better than you" thing is really bizarre. I see it in a lot of the "anti" posts, and I'm starting to wonder if it's not a manifestation of some deeper issue. Seriously.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

needo said:


> Wow I am in the complete opposite boat. I have really missed the writers. I cannot stand reality TV with a passion. I wish it was never invented and as soon as I hear someone is a fan of some illiterate TV (Oops! I mean reality TV) show I usually mentally subtract 100 IQ points. I get enough reality all day at work and at home I don't need reality on my TV.


The nice thing about Reality TV is that it IS mindless fun. I love seeing everyday people put in extraordinary circumstances. Occasionally it's even inspiring, watching people achieve their dreams. It's great family viewing too. Lots to discuss (and diss) and the kids enjoy it. I often work at the same time I'm watching. It's good harmless fun. Scripted shows generally have a plot you have to follow and at times I'd rather just sit and be entertained and not have to pay close attention to what's going on. Especially with small kids around constantly making noise and asking questions. As far as IQ points? I'll show you mine if you show me yours.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's a completely ridiculous argument. Of course you have to belong to the WGA if you want to write. Yes, technically you can do some writing without being a member, but those situations are not the norm. For the most part, if you want to write in Hollywood, you've got to be a member of the union. And screw you if you were happy with your job and compensation before. You're now screwed because you have no choice in the matter.


Well then, as Amnesia and others so kindly put it, you can just go find another job. And you should be happy about it. You get what you can negotiate, and this is where you put yourself. Bed. You. Lie. At least that's the idea as I understand it.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

old7 said:


> If you don't like unions then don't belong to one. It is really that simple.


That's not true. Unions are notorious for forcing EVERYONE who works on a jobsite (for instance) to be dues paying union members. I only have experience in the building trades, but I'm guessing it's the same anywhere there's a union. As an example. When I was a young man I was a carpet layer working for my Father on one of his Real Estate Developments. Even being the owners son, I STILL had to join the Carpet Layers Union if I wanted to work on the job. It was a friggin joke. They never even talked to me. Just asked for the money, I wrote them a check and suddenly, now I'm in the union. The alternative? They would pull every union worker on the job off and send them home until I joined. So no. Joining the Union was not my free choice. It was forced on me. If I wanted to work on anything new we were building I had to join the union. It's the same in Hollywood. It's a friggin union town. Saying people there have a choice not to join is (IMO) being intentionally obtuse.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

bareyb said:


> TJoining the Union was not my free choice. It was forced on me.


Who forced you to take that particular job? If you were smart you'd have taken a different job.

(Again, as I understand the free-market argument)


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

mrmike said:


> In my scenario I asked you. You said you were unhappy (Reading is fundamental).


It certainly is---just because I get paid more than you doesn't mean that I'm not unhappy. People are individuals---they have different needs and ideas as to what their compensation should be.


mrmike said:


> Again. No dragging. You seem hung up on a coercive factor that's entirely in your head.


Replace the word "drag" with the word "bring". Continue reading.



mrmike said:


> Also, this constant "I'm just better than you" thing is really bizarre.


I was just using the example of two people with different abilities. It seems natural to me that they should be compensated differently. If you want to be the person with better skills in these hypothetical discussions, fine. It's hypothetical, remember?


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

I think I just need to take a deep breath and step away from this discussion. Because it's not - and hasn't been for some time - about the WGA strike against the AMPTP. It's become a series of Amnesia rants against the statutorily protected right of employees to organize. I admit to allowing myself to be baited by the troll. He wants to discuss this imaginary world where labor law is what he wants it to be, rather than what it is. And there's no way to have a real _dialogue_ about that, because he makes all the rules at his own whim. So I'm done. Go ahead troll, find some other billy goats gruff to play with*.

*If you understood the reference, thank a writer


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

mrmike said:


> You get what you can negotiate, and this is where you put yourself.


No, except that the union prevents non-members from even being able to negotiate a position.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

mrmike said:


> Who forced you to take that particular job? If you were smart you'd have taken a different job.
> 
> (Again, as I understand the free-market argument)


Again. Being (I hope) intentionally obtuse. I had to work on that job. My Father was the builder! He needed carpets laid. It was either I join the union or he hires a different carpet layer. Who also would HAVE to be in the union 

Even if I had wanted to lay carpet (or do any other type of new construction) for someone else I would not have been able to because such jobs do not exist. The Unions have made sure of that. If I want to work new construction you join the union or they will come after you and the builder who hired you. The only way for your scenario to work is if we abolished Unions around here completely. Not a bad idea, but I don't think that's what you intended.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

AJRitz said:


> It's become a series of Amnesia rants against the statutorily protected right of employees to organize. I admit to allowing myself to be baited by the troll.


I honestly laughed out loud at that!

I have my opinions as to why unions are bad. Others have their opinions as to why unions are good. If I'm asked to explain how I think things should be (and I was), then I'll explain. It's certainly not a "rant".


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> No, except that the union prevents non-members from even being able to negotiate a position.


In your world people have some right to do a particular type of work for a particular client? No? They have the right to violate any and all legally written and valid contracts? No? Then the union prevents no such thing. You can't have it both ways. At least not in the real world (tm).


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

mrmike said:


> In your world people have some right to do a particular type of work for a particular client?


Of course not. But if they want to do the work and the client wants them to do the work and they can agree on a price, then Yes! They should be able to do the work!

But unions prevent this. If a writer wanted to work for the terms of the old contract, they are not allowed to. If a company wants to hire a writer who is not a member of the WGA, they are not allowed to.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

AJRitz said:


> I think I just need to take a deep breath and step away from this discussion. Because it's not - and hasn't been for some time - about the WGA strike against the AMPTP. It's become a series of Amnesia rants against the statutorily protected right of employees to organize. I admit to allowing myself to be baited by the troll. He wants to discuss this imaginary world where labor law is what he wants it to be, rather than what it is. And there's no way to have a real _dialogue_ about that, because he makes all the rules at his own whim. So I'm done. Go ahead troll, find some other billy goats gruff to play with*.


Hey don't go away mad. I think you are making some valid points. As is Amnesia (he's not a Troll and apparently, not an auto mechanic either!) The problem here is that this is a very polarizing set of circumstances. It's as old as labor itself. As long as we have this bizarre mixture of free market and socialism going there will always be folks who feel more comfortable on one side of the other. I personally relate more to management. Many people automatically side with Labor. It's all based on your own life experiences.

I can't imagine how pissed off I'd be if suddenly all the people who worked for me suddenly decided to take a hike because I wouldn't give Joe Schmo a big enough raise. Combine that with all the BS I had to put up with when I was in the Union and there you go. It's really just that simple for me. I think it's a broke system that may have had a place in time, but it's time has passed. This latest strike will probably shine as an example of how pointless and wasteful the whole "pay us what we want or we will ruin you" mentality has become. In the end, this strike hasn't proven jack. It's only hurt a lot of innocent people who would probably rather have been getting a paycheck than participating in this colossal pissing match between two giant egos.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> Of course not. But if they want to do the work and the client wants them to do the work and they can agree on a price, then Yes! They should be able to do the work!
> 
> But unions prevent this. If a writer wanted to work for the terms of the old contract, they are not allowed to. If a company wants to hire a writer who is not a member of the WGA, they are not allowed to.


Because they both signed a contract saying so. Voluntarily. Neither the WGA nor the company had to do this. They chose to. The client can't then decide to violate that contract just 'cause he wants to. That's not how contracts work in the real world (tm).

I should have stayed gone last time I got tired of discussing cloud cuckoo land. My mistake.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

bareyb said:


> Again. Being (I hope) intentionally obtuse. I had to work on that job. My Father was the builder! He needed carpets laid. It was either I join the union or he hires a different carpet layer. Who also would HAVE to be in the union
> 
> Even if I had wanted to lay carpet (or do any other type of new construction) for someone else I would not have been able to because such jobs do not exist. The Unions have made sure of that. If I want to work new construction you join the union or they will come after you and the builder who hired you. The only way for your scenario to work is if we abolished Unions around here completely. Not a bad idea, but I don't think that's what you intended.


So you're blaming the union because your Dad made you lay carpet? Should have told Dad to pound sand and become a self-made man doing a job that doesn't have those requirements. Where's your free market philosophy on that nepotism boy? (Note: tongue heavily in cheek)


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

mrmike said:


> Because they both signed a contract saying so. Voluntarily.


That's just it! They didn't!

We're talking about a new writer who wants a job. He didn't sign anything. He doesn't want to be in the union. But the union is preventing him from getting a job, despite the fact that he wants to do it and the employer wants him to do it and they agree on terms.

The union is saying "you can't get the job unless you give us money" and maybe "the terms that you and the company agreed upon aren't good enough for us".


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

bareyb said:


> Hey don't go away mad. I think you are making some valid points. As is Amnesia (he's not a Troll and apparently, not an auto mechanic either!) The problem here is that this is a very polarizing set of circumstances. It's as old as labor itself. As long as we have this bizarre mixture of free market and socialism going there will always be folks who feel more comfortable on one side of the other. I personally relate more to management. Many people automatically side with Labor. It's all based on your own life experiences.
> 
> I can't imagine how pissed off I'd be if suddenly all the people who worked for me suddenly decided to take a hike because I wouldn't give Joe Schmo a big enough raise. Combine that with all the BS I had to put up with when I was in the Union and there you go. It's really just that simple for me. I think it's a broke system that may have had a place in time, but it's time has passed. This latest strike will probably shine as an example of how pointless and wasteful the whole "pay us what we want or we will ruin you" mentality has become. In the end, this strike hasn't proven jack. It's only hurt a lot of innocent people who would probably rather have been getting a paycheck than participating in this colossal pissing match between two giant egos.


But this isn't the are unions broke thread, this is the WGA strike thread.

I said this at the earliest part of this thread. People aren't discussing the strike, they're laying their grievances about unions over and over and over, and it's off topic.

This is the TV talk forum.

-smak-


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

This is a page and half late, but jeez, a TV Talk forum and nobody brought up that Bhopal, in addition to being one of the worst industrial disasters ever, also gave rise to Khan Noonien Singh?

Then again, that was in a book, not on screen, so I'm sure harder core geeks than I will say it is "not canon."


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

smak said:


> But this isn't the are unions broke thread, this is the WGA strike thread.
> 
> I said this at the earliest part of this thread. People aren't discussing the strike, they're laying their grievances about unions over and over and over, and it's off topic.
> 
> ...


Too bad you can't get the mods to delete all the posts in here that you don't agree with. Or perhaps we all just "don't get it" eh? Strikes are because of Unions. It's as much part of this thread as the strike itself. But nice try...


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> That's just it! They didn't!
> 
> We're talking about a new writer who wants a job. He didn't sign anything. He doesn't want to be in the union. But the union is preventing him from getting a job, despite the fact that he wants to do it and the employer wants him to do it and they agree on terms.


And I think this is the key point of confusion in this thread. In (almost?) all your other posts you simply said 'writer' not 'potential new writer'.

Obviously a majority of the existing unionized writers are fairly happy with the union; becuase if they weren't they'd simply have voted to disolve it. And again the majority of the existing unionized writers are onboard with this strike because they voted for it.

But your previous posts seem to make more sense if you are looking at future or potenial writers. They are the one who may get stuck joining the union and accepting whatever new contract this strike results it, but they don't have any control over the strike.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Fassade said:


> This is a page and half late, but jeez, a TV Talk forum and nobody brought up that Bhopal, in addition to being one of the worst industrial disasters ever, also gave rise to Khan Noonien Singh?


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> That's just it! They didn't!
> 
> We're talking about a new writer who wants a job. He didn't sign anything. He doesn't want to be in the union. But the union is preventing him from getting a job, despite the fact that he wants to do it and the employer wants him to do it and they agree on terms.


No. The contract the employer signed saying they won't hire non-union employees is preventing this. Not the union. And that contract was voluntarily signed. Just because it's inconvenient for the employer now isn't a reason they should be able to violate it. Even in the pro-business world of today.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> Obviously a majority of the existing unionized writers are fairly happy with the union; becuase if they weren't they'd simply have voted to disolve it. And again the majority of the existing unionized writers are onboard with this strike because they voted for it.


See, I disagree with this premise. Unions are notorious for using strongarm tactics and fostering a mob mentality. Because most people are afraid to go against the grain, its highly unlikely that any union would get a majority of its members to vote for dissolution, even if they actually wanted to, because anyone who spoke out about it would be ridiculed and ostracized by those in control and most people are more comfortable being sheep, so they'll just keep quiet rather than rock the boat. If there were a way to get honest answers from every member of the WGA today about the strike, I'll bet you'd find that they're not nearly as united as they claim to be.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mrmike said:


> No. The contract the employer signed saying they won't hire non-union employees is preventing this. Not the union. And that contract was voluntarily signed. Just because it's inconvenient for the employer now isn't a reason they should be able to violate it. Even in the pro-business world of today.


Although you claim the employer voluntarily signed the contract, did they really have a choice? What would happen if a production company decided to set up shop in LA and wanted to make movies/TV shows but didn't want to employ union labor? How long would this shop be able to remain in business?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

mrmike said:


> No. The contract the employer signed saying they won't hire non-union employees is preventing this. Not the union.


But you said that they *both* signed it. A new worker didn't sign anything.

And it is the union who is preventing it. The union is the one who insisted on that clause of the contract. And the union is the one who would object if the company wanted to drop that clause.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> But you said that they *both* signed it. A new worker didn't sign anything.
> 
> And it is the union who is preventing it. The union is the one who insisted on that clause of the contract. And the union is the one who would object if the company wanted to drop that clause.


Both meaning the two parties to the contract. The union and the company. And you said that in your world you had no right to work for either, nor to invalidate legal contracts. Q.E.D. Your third party is irrelevant to the discussion.



DevdogAZ said:


> Although you claim the employer voluntarily signed the contract, did they really have a choice? What would happen if a production company decided to set up shop in LA and wanted to make movies/TV shows but didn't want to employ union labor? How long would this shop be able to remain in business?


If you think money could be made doing this, you're welcome to try. So is anybody else. That's the free market for you in the real world (tm). In this day of internet distro, writers are already working the other end of the issue by writing for non-AMPTP entities who are producing for online consumers and willing to pay them for it. Viola.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

bareyb said:


> Too bad you can't get the mods to delete all the posts in here that you don't agree with. Or perhaps we all just "don't get it" eh? Strikes are because of Unions. It's as much part of this thread as the strike itself. But nice try...


Nobody wants to hear your anti-union diatribes constantly. Discuss this strike or don't discuss this strike.

Nobody wants to hear about how you were treated badly by the unions, wahhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Everything you say has no relationship to the subject at hand.

-smak-


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Fleegle said:


> I'm fairly positive that he's involved with the AMPTP in some way. His refusal to acknowledge my question make me all the more sure that I'm correct.


But so what if he is? It wouldn't change anything, would it? There's plenty of people on this forum that support each side whether they have any personal financial interest in the outcome or not. We're all on pretty even ground in that nobody here really knows what, if any, interests in the outcome anyone here has.

There's obviously those who follow the events in greater detail than others. And there's certainly some who are obviously misinformed about such events as well. And there's the people who are always anti-union and those that are always pro-union chiming in too. There's probably even a scab writer or two around this place.

I just don't really see how his answer to that question would contribute anything in any way to the thread except to satisfy your curiosity.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

smak said:


> Nobody wants to hear your anti-union diatribes constantly. Discuss this strike or don't discuss this strike.
> 
> Nobody wants to hear about how you were treated badly by the unions, wahhhhhhhhhhhhh.
> 
> ...


Love you too smak.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

mrmike said:


> Both meaning the two parties to the contract. The union and the company.


Maybe you're confused. This is your post that started this discussion:


mrmike said:


> In your world people have some right to do a particular type of work for a particular client? No?


That was followed by several posts back-and-forth which certainly seemed to me to suggest that when you said "people", you meant, well *people*. Individuals.

So that's why it's the union that's the third party. The individual wants to work for the company and the company wants to hire her. They agree on terms, but it's the union stopping it.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Jonathan_S said:


> And I think this is the key point of confusion in this thread. In (almost?) all your other posts you simply said 'writer' not 'potential new writer'.
> 
> Obviously a majority of the existing unionized writers are fairly happy with the union; becuase if they weren't they'd simply have voted to disolve it. And again the majority of the existing unionized writers are onboard with this strike because they voted for it.
> 
> But your previous posts seem to make more sense if you are looking at future or potenial writers. They are the one who may get stuck joining the union and accepting whatever new contract this strike results it, but they don't have any control over the strike.


I think you can also include "Any writer for the last 15 years."

Basically unless you were a part of the founding of a union, you have no say on how you're chosen profession is run if it's controlled by a Union.

I agree unions in principle are a good idea, but I believe that they get perverted into a small group's means for power plays that keep the little people in the union from having individual rights.

I also believe that we should all take a step back from the keyboards and breathe. I am quite enjoying this thread and the discussion, I don't want anyone getting TBanned or the thread going *poof*.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> Maybe you're confused. This is your post that started this discussion:
> That was followed by several posts back-and-forth which certainly seemed to me to suggest that when you said "people", you meant, well *people*. Individuals.
> 
> So that's why it's the union that's the third party. The individual wants to work for the company and the company wants to hire her. They agree on terms, but it's the union stopping it.


The company wants to hire her. But they cannot because they *voluntarily signed a contract with another party saying they could not*. Their desire, and the individuals are irrelevant as neither can nor should have the right to vacate that contract without penalty.

If I sign a non-compete with Company A (As in I won't sell products that compete with A) and Fred develops such a product and wants me to sell it that's too bad. Because Company A and I have a binding contract, voluntarily entered into. It's not Company A that's stopping me. It's the contract. That's the whole bloody point. Any discussion in any other context is irrelevant and merely obfuscating the issue we're actually trying to discuss here (at least some of us).


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

AnalogyTime said:


> I think you can also include "Any *citizen* for the last *200+* years."
> 
> Basically unless you were a part of the founding of a *Representative Democracy*, you have no say on how you're[sic] *tax dollars are used* if it's controlled by a *Congress*.
> 
> I agree *Congress* in principle are a good idea, but I believe that they get perverted into a small group's means for power plays that keep the little people in the *country* from having individual rights.


What do you know. I kinda agree with you. But, like a union member, one vote is all I got and I have to make the best of it.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

mrmike said:


> The company wants to hire her. But they cannot because they voluntarily signed a contract with another party saying they could not.


I'm not sure "voluntarily" is the way I would describe it. But yes---you're right, that's the whole problem...or at least one of the problems with unions: they stop people from working at places unless they A) give the union money and B) work at a union-specified minimum wage.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> I'm not sure "voluntarily" is the way I would describe it. But yes---you're right, that's the whole problem...or at least one of the problems with unions: they stop people from working at places unless they A) give the union money and B) work at a union-specified minimum wage.


Again. You're blaming the union for something that two parties voluntarily negotiated and agreed to (an exclusivity clause in a contract) and then bringing in other things (like the unions requirements of its members) which are irrelevant to the discussion. I understand you empathize with the company and want it to be blameless and benevolent and the union to be evil and grasping, but it's just not so. In any case, whatever you're talking about isn't the real world (tm) and so I must again say ta.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

mrmike said:


> I understand you empathize with the company and want it to be blameless and benevolent and the union to be evil and grasping, but it's just not so.


If that's what you "understand", then you don't understand much.

There are three parties that we're discussing: The individual worker, the company and the union. While I'm definitely anti-union, it's the *individual* that I empathize with. Re-read my posts---what I most don't like about unions is their exclusionary nature and their interference in a person's ability to set their own individual compensation package.

Oh, and if you think the company "voluntarily" agreed to a closed shop, then what's an example of agreeing to something under duress?


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

mrmike said:


> What do you know. I kinda agree with you. But, like a union member, one vote is all I got and I have to make the best of it.


Please don't quote me, change my words, and then try to make some point that I wasn't even hinting to.

However, your point about Congress and the US I think doesn't hold up. There are measures in place in the US that DO protect individual rights. As far as i know, there are not the same protections in Unions. (I may be ignorant here)


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

DavidTigerFan said:


> There are measures in place in the US that DO protect individual rights. As far as i know, there are not the same protections in Unions. (I may be ignorant here)


Which individual rights are you concerned about?
Protection from unreasonable search and seizure? Without union intervention to prevent it, companies are free to search and spy on their employees with impunity.

Rights to have an attorney present when you're being questioned? Without the right to have a union rep present when an employee is being "interviewed" by his employer, the interviewee can be subjected to all manner of inappropriate coercive questioning and selective recordkeeping.

If you're only talking about protection of individual rights within the union, then under the terms of the NLRA and the LMRDA each employee has a right of "fair representation" by his union. That has generally been interpreted to mean that the union must treat requests/greivances/etc. from its members equally.

Union are required to hold regularly scheduled elections, and the elections process is highly monitored. Yes, that monitoring is the response to some much-publicized corruption (in the Teamsters Union in particular). Unions exist only as long as a majority of workers in the union support its continuation. A dissatisfied worker is free to start a decertification petition at virtually any time (the specific time-frames are in the NLRA and subject to NLRB oversight), seeking to decertify the Union. If successful, the Union ceases to exist.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

AJRitz said:


> Protection from unreasonable search and seizure? Without union intervention to prevent it, companies are free to search and spy on their employees with impunity.


Are you kidding?

So you're saying that spying is rampant in non-union companies and non-existent in union shops?


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Basically unless you were a part of the founding of a union, you have no say on how you're chosen profession is run if it's controlled by a Union.


That's why unions should not be allowed to have exclusive agreements with companies. Individuals should always have the option of joining the union, and getting the union contract, or negotiating their own contract. If joining the union was truly beneficial, then people would join even if they were not forced to.

Unions were initially formed because people could not "just get another job", and I find it hypocritical that they, through their exclusivity contracts, are essentially telling workers the same thing.


----------



## NinerK (Oct 10, 2002)

So are there any updates?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

NinerK said:


> So are there any updates?


I don't think so---they said that there's going to be a media blackout until they're done (similar to the AMPTP/DGA talks)


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

AJRitz said:


> Unions exist only as long as a majority of workers in the union support its continuation.


Well, at least as long as the majority of workers are unwilling to risk being kicked out of the union for fear of losing the ability to find jobs within an industry. And it's only the members of the union that have any say in the matter.



AJRitz said:


> A dissatisfied worker is free to start a decertification petition at virtually any time (the specific time-frames are in the NLRA and subject to NLRB oversight), seeking to decertify the Union. If successful, the Union ceases to exist.


Yeah, a worker can get rid of the union just like a worker can start his or her own company if he or she doesn't like the working conditions, but both have a high barrier of entry, and the latter is why unions were formed in the first place. On the other hand, if you prevent unions from having exclusive control over labor in an industry, enough individuals might decide not to take part in the union that the union's power would dissolve over time to the point where it no longer existed. That gives individuals far more power over the union than expecting them to take on a well-established power base. And, it forces unions to stay relevant instead of existing simply because of their size and history.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> There are three parties that we're discussing: The individual worker, the company and the union. While I'm definitely anti-union, it's the *individual* that I empathize with. Re-read my posts---what I most don't like about unions is their exclusionary nature and their interference in a person's ability to set their own individual compensation package.
> 
> Oh, and if you think the company "voluntarily" agreed to a closed shop, then what's an example of agreeing to something under duress?


First: If there is a closed shop, call the Feds. Taft-Hartley made those illegal IIRC.
Second: A union shop can only exist through the voluntary agreement of two parties, the union and the shop. Blaming the union solely for this is absurd. The shop is interfering just as much in the employment process as the union is in this case.
Third: As I have said several times, the third party is a red herring and irrelevant to the discussion. The only relevant parties to a valid, legal contract are the two signatories. If you have an issue with the contract, it is with both of the signatory parties. Of those two, you choose to only take umbrage with one.

I'm done tossing bones under this particular bridge.

So, who thinks the AMPTP will come back to the table now that Reality and Animation are off the table?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

mrmike said:


> First: If there is a closed shop, call the Feds. Taft-Hartley made those illegal IIRC.


"Closed shop", "union shop", whatever. If you can't work there without giving the union money, that's wrong.


mrmike said:


> A union shop can only exist through the voluntary agreement of two parties, the union and the shop. Blaming the union solely for this is absurd. The shop is interfering just as much in the employment process as the union is in this case.


So if the company wanted to get rid of that clause the union would welcome that? I don't think so. It's the union who forced the company to add that clause and it's the union which is forcing the company to keep that clause. How can I blame anyone but the union?

And it wasn't a voluntary agreement. Again: if this was "voluntary", then what does it mean to sign something under duress?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mrmike said:


> Second: A union shop can only exist through the voluntary agreement of two parties, the union and the shop. Blaming the union solely for this is absurd. The shop is interfering just as much in the employment process as the union is in this case.


It amazes me that you continue to throw out this point. Do you really think the shop "voluntarily" agreed to the contract? I think they had no choice, as they would have no labor if they didn't. Such forced "agreement" is not really voluntary.


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

mrmike said:


> So, who thinks the AMPTP will come back to the table now that Reality and Animation are off the table?


They are in informal talks now so at least that is a good sign. I think the WGA saw what the DGA got and thought "Gimme!"


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

mrmike said:


> If I sign a non-compete with Company A (As in I won't sell products that compete with A) and Fred develops such a product and wants me to sell it that's too bad. Because Company A and I have a binding contract, voluntarily entered into. It's not Company A that's stopping me. It's the contract. That's the whole bloody point. Any discussion in any other context is irrelevant and merely obfuscating the issue we're actually trying to discuss here (at least some of us).


The problem with a non-compete analogy is that non-competes, in many or most states, are difficult to enforce. Here in Wisconsin, for example, the default assumption is that the non-compete is invalid. In order to be valid it needs to pass very strict scrutiny by law. They need to protect a legitimate business interest other than fair competition - for example preventing trade secrets or client lists from going to competitors, they need to be narrowly defined to a specific geographical range, they need to specify the exact nature of the work prohibited, they need to have a reasonable duration, and they need to not unreasonably restrict an individual's ability to be gainfully employed.

It is very unlikely that the scenario as you described would be ruled in Company A's favor. Being a salesperson does not require any special skills that rightly belong to company A that you would be transferring to a competitor. If Company A took you to court for working for Fred, most likely they would lose and be required to pay your attorney's fees.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

mrmike said:


> First: If there is a closed shop, call the Feds. Taft-Hartley made those illegal IIRC.


This is close to accurate, but not 100% so. After Taft-Hartley, states could enact statutes that prohibited closed shops. These are called "Right to Work" statutes. Most states have passed them, but not all. So in some states, there can legally be "closed shops." I am not sure what state's law would apply to the WGA contract, but California is a right to work state, meaning that closed shops are illegal.



mrmike said:


> Third: As I have said several times, the third party is a red herring and irrelevant to the discussion. The only relevant parties to a valid, legal contract are the two signatories. If you have an issue with the contract, it is with both of the signatory parties. Of those two, you choose to only take umbrage with one.


I don't agree with this. If two corporations get together and agree that they will not sell their product below a certain price point, that would clearly be a price fixing agreement that could negatively effect a third party. Similarly, an agreement between a union and an employer could negatively effect the individual employee. So, I don't agree that the third party issue is a red herring.

That being said, I have no problem with unions in concept because 
I perceive them as leveling the inherint disparity in bargaining power between an individual fungible employee and a large employer negotiating wages. The employer has many many choices of people that they can try to go to to do a particular job. Any one individual who won't play ball and accept the employer's offered wage is inconsequential to the employer, so its easy to say no to a single or a few individual employees that want higher wages. Its only when large groups of employees say no that the employer has to respond. Don't get me wrong, I think unions often cut off their noses to spite their faces, but I do see the union as a counter to the inherint strength of bargaining power of the large employer.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> It amazes me that you continue to throw out this point. Do you really think the shop "voluntarily" agreed to the contract? I think they had no choice, as they would have no labor if they didn't. Such forced "agreement" is not really voluntary.


Assuming there really is a closed shop agreement, who's to say the employer didn't voluntarily agree to this provision, perhaps in lieu of some other more costly concession by the union. E.g., "We'll agree to a closed shop provision, if the union agrees to drop the demand of 2 hour lunch breaks for all employees, and the demand for a .30/ hour wage hike."


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

PPC1 said:


> Assuming there really is a closed shop agreement, who's to say the employer didn't voluntarily agree to this provision, perhaps in lieu of some other more costly concession by the union. E.g., "We'll agree to a closed shop provision, if the union agrees to drop the demand of 2 hour lunch breaks for all employees, and the demand for a .30/ hour wage hike."


My point is that in this particular industry, in this particular town, a non-union production house would not get any labor and would not be able to sell their product to any distributors, so whether they want to cooperate with the union or not, they are essentially forced to do so if they want to participate in that industry.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

PPC1 said:


> This is close to accurate, but not 100% so. After Taft-Hartley, states could enact statutes that prohibited closed shops. These are called "Right to Work" statutes. Most states have passed them, but not all. So in some states, there can legally be "closed shops." I am not sure what state's law would apply to the WGA contract, but California is a right to work state, meaning that closed shops are illegal.


Closed shops were outlawed by taft hartley. Union shops were left to the discretion of states. Right to work states disallow union shops as well.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

TAsunder said:


> Closed shops were outlawed by taft hartley. Union shops were left to the discretion of states.


IMO, the difference between the two is immaterial for this discussion. If you can't work at a company without giving the union money, or letting them set the terms of your compensation, then that's a problem.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> IMO, the difference between the two is immaterial for this discussion. If you can't work at a company without giving the union money, or letting them set the terms of your compensation, then that's a problem.


Agreed.


----------



## NinerK (Oct 10, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> I don't think so---they said that there's going to be a media blackout until they're done (similar to the AMPTP/DGA talks)


Thanks Amnesia, I guess that's why we haven't heard anything new. Bummer. I hope everything works out for all parties involved.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

So if they were to hypothetically get a deal done by Feb. 15, how would that effect the current TV season? Would most shows just not bother coming back until next season? Would they try to get some episodes written and shot for April/May? Would they possibly extend the "season" into June or beyond? 

What about serial shows like LOST? If they can't get in all 16 episodes, will they just stick to the eight they already have done and try to make up the missed eps in later seasons? Will they start shooting the next season now and air some eps next fall?

What about pilot season? Is there time to actually get anything done, or is the writing for pilots usually long since completed and they're already casting and filming by now? If they don't even get to start writing until my hypothetical date, would that just be too little time to get a pilot done in time for the Upfronts?

Which brings me to my next question, do you think the writers have been working during the strike and will have material ready to go on the first day post-strike, or will they not start writing until the strike is over, meaning that even after they go back to work, they're at least a week or two away from having something ready to shoot?


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> So if they were to hypothetically get a deal done by Feb. 15, how would that effect the current TV season?


Yeah, that's the big question, touched on by Variety today too.

Personally, I think most shows wouldn't go back into production to air episodes this season. Something like _Lost_, I'd imagine, would be an exception since the fanbase is so rabid and an incomplete season means no (extremely lucrative) DVD release.

As a fan of scripted-programming, that would really suck though.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Maybe the extra several months would mean they could write a decent 24 script.



AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I can't believe I typed that with a straight face.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I haven't read the whole thread, obviously--every time I looked at it it was off subject--but am I the only one annoyed that they seem like they might settle the strike now so the stupid Academy Awards can go on? WHO CARES! They leave us with no shows through the most boring time of the year, and then all of a sudden they settle it for some stupid awards show. I wouldn't watch the Oscars if it was the only show on for a month.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

If they *do* resolve the strike in the near future, I will have no doubt that it would have much more to do with the DGA deal than the upcoming Oscars.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

TAsunder said:


> Closed shops were outlawed by taft hartley. Union shops were left to the discretion of states. Right to work states disallow union shops as well.


I stand corrected.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

BitbyBlit said:


> If joining the union was truly beneficial, then people would join even if they were not forced to.


Absolutely a false statement. There will always be a faction that wouldn't join the union for any reason even though they are benefitting from the negotiations in whole or in part. At my employer, engineers are free to not joint the union and not pay dues. However, they get the exact same benefits and pay raises that the union negotiates for the rest of the employees.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

bengalfreak said:


> There will always be a faction that wouldn't join the union for any reason even though they are benefitting from the negotiations in whole or in part.


Obviously they don't see the benefit in joining or else they would...


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

bengalfreak said:


> At my employer, engineers are free to not joint the union and not pay dues. However, they get the exact same benefits and pay raises that the union negotiates for the rest of the employees.


They can still be forced to pay the portion of dues that goes into collective bargaining portion of the union activities. Just not the additional dues that go into political campaigns, strike benefits, etc.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

bengalfreak said:


> Absolutely a false statement. There will always be a faction that wouldn't join the union for any reason even though they are benefitting from the negotiations in whole or in part. At my employer, engineers are free to not joint the union and not pay dues. However, they get the exact same benefits and pay raises that the union negotiates for the rest of the employees.


Then there's also the unions that don't let anybody just join at all and make them jump through numerous hoops before they "earn" the right to join, and thus become eligible for jobs that non-union workers are locked out of almost entirely.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

hanumang said:


> Yeah, that's the big question, touched on by Variety today too.
> 
> Personally, I think most shows wouldn't go back into production to air episodes this season. Something like _Lost_, I'd imagine, would be an exception since the fanbase is so rabid and an incomplete season means no (extremely lucrative) DVD release.
> 
> As a fan of scripted-programming, that would really suck though.


Interesting. I would think it would be just the opposite. Those shows that can make 3-5 more episodes without it mattering to overall story continuity would be prime candidates for coming back this season, while I'd think a show like LOST that would likely require the additional 8 episodes to finish telling the story they want to tell and therefore they'd simply scrap that idea and pick it up next season.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

RKO signed a side deal  yesterday, which the article says the is 13th such deal, though it only lists 11 -- RKO, Lionsgate, Marvel, TWC, UA, Sidney Kimmel Entertainment, Spyglass Entertainment, MRC, Jackson Bites, Mandate Films, and Worldwide Pants. (I think Weinstein separately is the 12th, but not sure on the 13th?)

More significantly, despite the media blackout, deadlinehollywooddaily (a pro-writer blog, certainly, but a decent source of unofficial gossip) has reported  both sides are "optimistic" and that Friday especially "was productive and collaborative and respectful...a very good day."

The comments on the blog indicate a range of opinion from hopeful to deeply skeptical, but it seems that the official negotiating groups are taking significant steps forward.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

I have to believe that both sides are motivated to have a deal in place before the Academy Awards telecast.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Good article. Thanks Fassade.

Side note: There's a Forum attached to that site where there is quite a lively discussion going on. Some of the folks are in the industry and are being directly affected by the strike. It's very interesting to see their perspective on things. Be prepared though. Not everyone is as civil as we are here.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

bareyb said:


> Good article. Thanks Fassade.
> 
> Side note: There's a Forum attached to that site where there is quite a lively discussion going on. Some of the folks are in the industry and are being directly affected by the strike. It's very interesting to see their perspective on things. Be prepared though. Not everyone is as civil as we are here.


Are you talking about the comments attached? I only see two from 2008, and the next earliest one is from 11/2007. Not a very lively discussion at all. Or is there someplace else you meant to reference?


----------



## alyssa (Dec 7, 2003)

bareyb said:


> Be prepared though. Not everyone is as civil as we are here.


You mean they use 4 letter words? <mock shock>

I just came from the Democratic underground- ohh-- talk about flaming & 'cussing.

Doug, I think she means here
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/urgent-talks-progress-report/#comments


----------



## The Flush (Aug 3, 2005)

Breakthrough in Striking Writers Talks



> A breakthrough in contract talks has been reached between Hollywood studios and striking writers and could lead to a tentative deal as early as next week, a person close to the ongoing negotiations said Saturday.
> 
> The two sides breached the gap Friday on the thorniest issues, those concerning compensation for projects distributed via the Internet, said the person, who requested anonymity because he were not authorized to speak publicly.
> 
> ...


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

The Flush said:


> Breakthrough in Striking Writers Talks


Man I hope that's true. That would be great. Of course then we have to wonder if the Actors are going to be next.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Man, I hope it's not true. I really was curious to see what would happen to next season if the entire pilot season was washed out. I had high hopes that a prolonged strike would be beneficial for shows like Friday Night Lights and possibly even Journeyman.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

The Flush said:


> Breakthrough in Striking Writers Talks


I'm sorry, you seem to have confused this thread with some sort of "strike updates" thread. As is plainly indicated by the previous pages upon pages of bickering, this thread is only for debating the relative merits of unions. I'm PMing a mod for your off-topic post.



Thanks for the update! I've weathered a subscription to this thread in the hopes there might occasionally be real nuggets of information in it.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Man, I hope it's not true. I really was curious to see what would happen to next season if the entire pilot season was washed out. I had high hopes that a prolonged strike would be beneficial for shows like Friday Night Lights and possibly even Journeyman.


Don't hold your breath on Journeyman. FNL has slightly better odds since it's produced by NBC.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I think we are already past the time for new pilots to be created so next season could be very reality based. Netflix and my extensive library of SF novels will be used.


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

> If members react favorably to the proposed deal at meetings set for Saturday in New York and Los Angeles, WGA leaders could act to lift or suspend the strike while a formal ratification process gets under way, two sources told Reuters.


http://www.reuters.com/article/ente...080206?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10004


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

I don't understand these stupid negotiations. Why are they waiting until saturday to meet again? None of these people have part time jobs at McDonalds. For the negotiators this is their job. For everyone else they are not working.

It makes zero sense. I understand the stand-off when you are far apart, but at this point you would think you want to hammer this out today, not in 4 days from now.


----------



## Indiana627 (Jan 24, 2003)

I think the negotiators are meeting all week. The meetings mentioned for Saturday is for the WGA to present the deal to their members, with a meeting to take place on each coast.


----------



## ced6 (Jul 30, 2003)

marksman said:


> I don't understand these stupid negotiations. Why are they waiting until saturday to meet again? None of these people have part time jobs at McDonalds. For the negotiators this is their job. For everyone else they are not working.
> 
> It makes zero sense. I understand the stand-off when you are far apart, but at this point you would think you want to hammer this out today, not in 4 days from now.


Also, just because they are not currently working as writers, doesn't mean they aren't currently working. I've known plenty of writers who have day jobs - just like actors - as telemarketers, waiters, service industry personnel, etc. Many writers go years without making anything while working on a script or attempting to rewrite and remarket scripts that they've already written.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

marksman said:


> I don't understand these stupid negotiations. Why are they waiting until saturday to meet again? None of these people have part time jobs at McDonalds. For the negotiators this is their job. For everyone else they are not working.
> 
> It makes zero sense. I understand the stand-off when you are far apart, but at this point you would think you want to hammer this out today, not in 4 days from now.


As far as I understand, the contract isn't even completely written up yet. They have an agreement in principle on many of the important parts that will be codified into a written contract throughout this week (and possibly beyond) but as of Friday, it was just a "yeah, that sounds like something we might be able to agree to" verbal type of thing.

The thing is, they have to be extremely careful when they're writing up the contract. Take for example the clause that NBC used to "allow" (force) Leno to write for himself... the clause was never intended to be used for that purpose. It was intended for guests on the show who are not normally writers on the show to perform their own material. Unfortunately, the clause wasn't clearly written, so NBC interpreted it to their benefit. That's just one example of where they need to make sure precisely the correct language is used, so there are no misinterpretations of the meaning and intent of the contract.


----------



## Indiana627 (Jan 24, 2003)

marksman said:


> I don't understand these stupid negotiations. Why are they waiting until saturday to meet again? None of these people have part time jobs at McDonalds. For the negotiators this is their job. For everyone else they are not working.
> 
> It makes zero sense. I understand the stand-off when you are far apart, but at this point you would think you want to hammer this out today, not in 4 days from now.





Indiana627 said:


> I think the negotiators are meeting all week. The meetings mentioned for Saturday is for the WGA to present the deal to their members, with a meeting to take place on each coast.


The Saturday meetings are for the east and west guild members to get an update from their leaders.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr...sion/news/e3i67f661e87c3de3d371be53ba2177272e


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> As far as I understand, the contract isn't even completely written up yet. They have an agreement in principle on many of the important parts that will be codified into a written contract throughout this week (and possibly beyond) but as of Friday, it was just a "yeah, that sounds like something we might be able to agree to" verbal type of thing.


No, the meeting on Saturday is in the hope that they will have an agreement in principle by then. They don't have one yet (although obviously they're optimistic enough to schedule a meeting). They will not proceed to actual contract negotiations until they've heard from the membership on what they've worked out so far.

From a letter to the WGA yesterday from its presidents:


> As Negotiating Committee Chair John Bowman wrote you last night, we are continuing to negotiate the terms of a tentative agreement with the AMPTP. We anticipate that we will be able to present the terms of that agreement to you in the next few days. In order to have a full discussion with you of the terms and how they were reached, and in order to get your input before making recommendations or decisions, we have scheduled membership meetings for current-active members only for this Saturday, February 9, in New York and Los Angeles.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

Robin said:


> I'm sorry, you seem to have confused this thread with some sort of "strike updates" thread. As is plainly indicated by the previous pages upon pages of bickering, this thread is only for debating the relative merits of unions. I'm PMing a mod for your off-topic post.


Swoon...


----------



## DianaMo (Oct 22, 2003)

Originally posted: February 10, 2008
*The WGA strike: It's nearly over, writers should pick up pencils by Wednesday*

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2008/02/the-wga-strike.html

Originally posted: February 8, 2008
*When is your favorite show coming back? Check out the list below*
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2008/02/when-is-your-fa.html


----------

