Who's in the WGA?
- Thread starter cynicallad
- Start date
Hollywood will still need stories even if they've got shills playing the roles. I don't see this affecting writers nearly as badly as their own strike did back in the day.
Or maybe I should say "the potential strike over the MBA (minimum basic agreement)."
Unions the world over are a total waste of time, run for the sole benefit of the people running the unions. That said, I realise that doesn't remotely answer your question, but this is rant-time.
Unionisation seems to be at its worst in the US: thirty-three years ago, the UK was just as bad and so we went on general strike, the lights went out and lots of people suffered. The solution was to break the unions. The whole thing is silly crap: everyone knows it, but we live in such a ridiculously PC world that people don't like saying it. Where are these poor disadvantaged writers? The ones I know (including myself) are at least as clued up as most of the shark producers out there. We don't need protection from them: it should be vice-versa. For a country so keen on justice for all and the power of the individual to make up its mind, America has a pretty parochial view of the way things should be run. In fact, it's almost French in its crass pig-headedness...
I love you all really.
Unions the world over are a total waste of time, run for the sole benefit of the people running the unions. That said, I realise that doesn't remotely answer your question, but this is rant-time.
Unionisation seems to be at its worst in the US: thirty-three years ago, the UK was just as bad and so we went on general strike, the lights went out and lots of people suffered. The solution was to break the unions. The whole thing is silly crap: everyone knows it, but we live in such a ridiculously PC world that people don't like saying it. Where are these poor disadvantaged writers? The ones I know (including myself) are at least as clued up as most of the shark producers out there. We don't need protection from them: it should be vice-versa. For a country so keen on justice for all and the power of the individual to make up its mind, America has a pretty parochial view of the way things should be run. In fact, it's almost French in its crass pig-headedness...
I love you all really.
Oh yeah, we defininitely live in a world in which poor victimized bosses need to be protected from the depredations of lazy, greedy, selfish *employees.*
How unjustly they're treated. Boo hoo. Maybe we should pass around the hat and raise a fund to buy gifts for the heads of major frigging corporations because their employees treat them so badly, so unfairly, because we refuse to give them everything that they're entitled to. Because their *employees* are so rich, so idle, so spoiled, have it so good -- compared to the ground-down, under-valued, over-worked *heads of corporations.*
Here's a little bit of information for you. You can go back to the years when Michael Eisner was riding high and look at his salary -- what he was earning in bonuses and stock options in any one of those big years.
He earned more in any one of those big pay-day years then every single guild screenwriter was paid for every single guild screenplay bought by everybody in those years.
That's one single individual at one company.
Meanwhile, we've got to go into negotiations with these f*ckers making record profits year after year and hear them plead poverty -- hear them tell us how the business is going bust and that's why they can't pay us anything -- and in fact need rollbacks or else they're going to go bankrupt.
Meanwhile, right now, the guy who designs the *cover art* on the DVDs that you go out and buy today, collects a higher royalty per unit sold than the guy who wrote the script for the movie inside.
And if that's the deal we can get in *collective* bargaining, when we have the leverage of a guild-wide strike -- do you really think that you'd get a *better* deals negotiating with them one on one, when the only leverage you'd have would be denying them *your* service?
NMS
Mmmm...well you certainly feel strongly about this, but the dichotomy for me is that (1) the zenith of world capitalist culture is the USA, and (2) unions are distinctly communist in flavour.
I'm all in favour of writers getting paid as much as possible (believe me, I am), but unions are pain in the ass organisations habitually run by self-serving shop-steward types who are the antithesis to anything creative, other than possibly their own expense accounts. I dislike unions, not writers.
The real culprit in the USA is perhaps the rather lax anti-trust legislation which allows quasi-monopolies (eg the sewn-up distribution network and ridiculously low across-the-board DVD net payments which you allude to). I'm not sure there's an answer to the artwork vs scriptwriter debate because I'm sure the artwork creator would argue vehemently the other way!
The fact that Michael Eisner was paid that much is I think irrelevant. He joins the same club as Bob Diamond, Hank Paulson and Philip Green (who paid himself - or rather his wife - a US$2billion dividend in 2006). Disney shareholders were happy(ish) to sanction such big money, presumably because they believed Eisner was making profits for his shareholders, which was his job. Philip Green was paid more than everyone in his whole company (with 1000s of employees). Chief executive pay is a different argument altogether to the union debate, and is a subject intrinsically unfair across many levels, but I can't see that aspect of corporate culture changing, just as I can't see the end of multimillion dollar deals for the 'best' in whatever field.
Do we begrudge it when Spielberg takes home US$72m in gross points and pay on a single project? Maybe we do, and maybe we don't.
The US has such diverse union problems that many non-US productions set in the US do not film in the US because of the restrictive and overbearing unionisation. They go to the Isle of Man, or wherever, and they ask any SAG actors to waive any entitlements under the SAG Collective Bargaining Agreement.
In the end, any studio/WGA/SAG debate will have to end in compromise, and the problem with strikes is that the people who get hurt are always the lower-earners in the chain, who cannot afford not to earn for an extended period.
The studios know that, the WGA knows that, and you and I know that. I hope there's no strike and a compromise can be reached. It would be in everyone's interest.
this really isn't the forum for union debating but in this case i don't see how a writer in an industry where they're nearly at the bottom of the money chain can argue against the benefits of the wga. maybe you're a foreigner and don't get it but opposing this union is like a gay man voting republican - and yes, they do exist but sheeeesh!
Last edited:
I'm a foreigner...but I do get it!
How does the WGA explain writers being at the bottom of the money chain? Surely there's a reasonable argument that if it had been doing its job over the years then writers would not be at the bottom of the money chain now. But then, logically, someone else would be: directors? producers? studios? How come the DGA gets seemingly better goodies for its members? Final credit? Etc Etc?
It really has little to do with unions per se, but actually more to do with the wider debate of who should get the credit/financial reward and how you value words on a page versus financial and camera work. Auteurism etc etc bla bla...
My argument is simply that I don't like the inherent structure and anticompetitiveness of unions. They are actually communist in theory!
And no, that doesn't stop me voting Republican (if I could - difficult as non-US resident). And no, I'm not even gay (although I wondered for a second if there was something in the subtext of my message that led you to conclude this!)
Unions the world over are a total waste of time, run for the sole benefit of the people running the unions. That said, I realise that doesn't remotely answer your question, but this is rant-time.
Gross overgeneralization. Worlwide, some unions are weak, some are strong, some are corrupt, some aren't. Some unions actually promote professionalism and safety among their rank and file.
Over on his blog, Alex Epstein pointed out that the pay and benefits negotiated by the WGA (and by extension, the IATSE, DGA, and SAG) made it possible to have a deep talent pool available in Hollywood. In South Africa, where Epstein was shooting, the paltry pay and benefits made it difficult for anyone to devote themselves to one of the film trades.
The US has never been, and will never be, as unionized as the UK is currently. Huge stretches of the US are right to work, that is, the state law is pre emptively hostile to unionization and union exclusive employment. No offense, but you just plain don't know anything about US labor issues and the way unions work here. Ask anyone who does know, and they'll tell you that industrial union power in the US was broken decades ago.
This doesn't pass the smell test. How many "shark producers" have you actually dealt with?
You don't know anything about the way we do business, in or out of the film industry. Our parochially run films and television industry routinely beats everyone elses, even in their home markets.
And French film crews are generally better than British ones.
I love you all really.
No thanks. I'll pass. Really.
Hey: chill. I'm not bashing Uncle Sam and you're being a little defensive IMHO.
I hardly think you can give South Africa as an example for talent pools. The deep talent pool in LA is due to the deep talent pool in LA. It's nothing to do with the WGA.
The Teamsters - as an example - is one of the most notorious unions in the world. Twenty years ago it was being run by the mafia (Mr Hoffa and his fine friends). It's still called an International Brotherhood for God's sake. Bush has to suck up to them. Says it all really.
On producers...you smell shark, which is when the rule of law comes into play. As long as you have a good team behind you, you can compete with the sharks. Lawyers and courts were designed for that sort of thing.
You obviously are making the point that the US film business is the best in the world. Great! Who said it wasn't? And have you worked in France with French film crews? Ooooh la la...there's this awful little thing called the 35 hour week, two hour lunch breaks, leaving early for the weekends, public holidays AND strikes.
Actually, the French are extremely good at strikes. The British are too. And so are the Americans; in the words of the great Carly Simon, I'm sure nobody does it better.
It sounds like you need a hug.
Hillgate - there's so much that's factually/rhetorically wrong with your comments that it's difficult to know where to begin, but I'll start with this:
What is the WGA mininum residual perecentage for a made-for-theatrical motion picture? what is the WGA minimum residual percentage for ad sales on streaming video content? If you can answer these questions, my respect for your general knowledge will go up.
Additionally, you complained/bragged about being in development hell with producer who you're smarter than and who should be wary of you. What are the agreed upon residual payments in your contract?
Just saying someone's wrong without backing it up is bottling out. And I can tell from your moniker that you're not a bottler. What do you disagree with, exactly, and why?
BTW - if you need to know WGA residual minimums I suggest you check the WGA website. It's extremely informative.
Also - you misquote me completely in your final paragraph. And it's 'agreed'. Not 'agreed upon'. The 'upon' is tautologous. And my residuals are conditional on there being a primary product, which there isn't, yet...
...but I live in hope.
I'm a foreigner...but I do get it!
You're a foreigner and you're clueless.
Of course the wages and benefits negotiated by the unions allow for a deeper talent pool in above and below the line professions. Anyone who's worked in Hwd for any length of time can see it.
This even applies to extras. Non union extras are simply a cut below union extras in just about every way you can imagine. The producers broke the Screen Extras Guild in order to save money by hiring non union extras. They're cheaper, but they're also flakier and much harder to work with. The only reason the non union extras don't really screw things up is b/c extra work doesn't usually demand much skill.
Non union shoots generally tend to work their crews to exhaustion, and tolerate, if not encourage, indifference to safety procedures.
The best people in every film craft work union. As soon as they can get in, they join.
French film crews don't usually take 2 hour lunch breaks. Sometimes they work right through lunch, eating while they work. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know this.
There's a difference between French film craftsmen and French truck drivers.
In the US, the Teamsters represents a wide variety of professions. Film industry truck drivers, of course, but also cops, firefighters, and various skilled trades in localities all over the US. This is the reason that politicians have to pay attention to them.
There's power in numbers. Organizing is only the smart thing to do for people in certain trades and certain industries.
Last edited:
Just saying someone's wrong without backing it up is bottling out. And I can tell from your moniker that you're not a bottler. What do you disagree with, exactly, and why?
BTW - if you need to know WGA residual minimums I suggest you check the WGA website. It's extremely informative.
Also - you misquote me completely in your final paragraph. And it's 'agreed'. Not 'agreed upon'. The 'upon' is tautologous. And my residuals are conditional on there being a primary product, which there isn't, yet...
...but I live in hope.
I actually know the residuals by heart, I was checking to see if you did, which you clearly don't.
And congrats on knowing how to use tautologous in a sentence. I find your ability to cover up a lack of general knowledge with SAT vocabulary words compelling.
Here's a refutation of your comments.
+++
In the end, any studio/WGA/SAG debate will have to end in compromise, and the problem with strikes is that the people who get hurt are always the lower-earners in the chain, who cannot afford not to earn for an extended period.
I have the greatest problem with this statement, as it’s demonstrably full of holes.
- Obviously, any collective bargaining ends in compromise, but as a labor stoppage is the sole weapon in the Guild’s arsenal, they’ll need to keep the possibility as leverage. The Producers and Studios have the similar option of a lockout, but that’s a nuclear option of last resort on both sides. The Guilds terms are very reasonable, and at present, it’s the producers who are taking a more aggressive stance.
- Additionally, the previous Executive Director of the WGA had a notoriously cozy relationship with the studios, and he left the Guild in the weakest position it’s ever been in.
- Re: lower earners, they may be most fragile, but they’ve got the most to gain. I’m sure a contrarian like yourself can point to dozens of writers who lost out in strikes, but for every one of them there are one hundred writers who’ve used union gains to buy homes, put their kids through college, and even save their lives (the health benefits).
- Moreso, there’s a multi-million dollar strike fund that will loan money to any writer who would have been earning during the strike. Similar monies were available in the great strike of 1988.
- Nobody wants a strike, least of all writers, but it's a tact they may have to take to secure their future.
The ones I know (including myself) are at least as clued up as most of the shark producers out there. We don't need protection from them: it should be vice-versa.
Agreed, you're so savvy you don't even know how to negotiate residuals properly.
For a country so keen on justice for all and the power of the individual to make up its mind, America has a pretty parochial view of the way things should be run. In fact, it's almost French in its crass pig-headedness...
Yes, America and France are ideological twins. Point to you.
Mmmm...well you certainly feel strongly about this, but the dichotomy for me is that (1) the zenith of world capitalist culture is the USA, and (2) unions are distinctly communist in flavour.
While unions do tend to skew to the left, accusations of Communism are harder to prove. Bear in mind that Ronald Reagan was President of SAG, and we all know what a big pinko he was.
I'm all in favour of writers getting paid as much as possible (believe me, I am), but unions are pain in the ass organisations habitually run by self-serving shop-steward types who are the antithesis to anything creative, other than possibly their own expense accounts. I dislike unions, not writers.
We’re not talking about any old union, we’re talking about the Writers Guild, which is run by working writers. The president, Patric Verrone, has had a great career.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0894890/
The real culprit in the USA is perhaps the rather lax anti-trust legislation which allows quasi-monopolies (eg the sewn-up distribution network and ridiculously low across-the-board DVD net payments which you allude to). I'm not sure there's an answer to the artwork vs scriptwriter debate because I'm sure the artwork creator would argue vehemently the other way!
This is true, but your statements echo press releases put out by news companies controlled by the same quasi-monopolies you’re decrying. Are they right in this one instance?
The fact that Michael Eisner was paid that much is I think irrelevant. He joins the same club as Bob Diamond, Hank Paulson and Philip Green (who paid himself - or rather his wife - a US$2billion dividend in 2006). Disney shareholders were happy(ish) to sanction such big money, presumably because they believed Eisner was making profits for his shareholders, which was his job. Philip Green was paid more than everyone in his whole company (with 1000s of employees). Chief executive pay is a different argument altogether to the union debate, and is a subject intrinsically unfair across many levels, but I can't see that aspect of corporate culture changing, just as I can't see the end of multimillion dollar deals for the 'best' in whatever field.
I agree. CEO salaries are a different issue than Union business.
How does the WGA explain writers being at the bottom of the money chain? Surely there's a reasonable argument that if it had been doing its job over the years then writers would not be at the bottom of the money chain now. But then, logically, someone else would be: directors? producers? studios? How come the DGA gets seemingly better goodies for its members? Final credit? Etc Etc?
Writers aren’t at the bottom of the money chain, necessarily. Bear in mind, a number of them are producers, especially in TV. Directors do get better deals, but that's largely because they can sell a film with name value whereas writers (largely) can't (don't flame me, it's a fact).
It really has little to do with unions per se, but actually more to do with the wider debate of who should get the credit/financial reward and how you value words on a page versus financial and camera work. Auteurism etc etc bla bla...
My argument is simply that I don't like the inherent structure and anticompetitiveness of unions. They are actually communist in theory!
Again – Ronald Reagan ran a union. So did Frank Capra. I guess they were Communists too.
+++
Again, I'm not 100% sure why you're taking such a strong stand against a guild that's always had the best interests of working screenwriters at heart.
Mmmm...well you certainly feel strongly about this, but the dichotomy for me is that (1) the zenith of world capitalist culture is the USA, and (2) unions are distinctly communist in flavour.
I'm all in favour of writers getting paid as much as possible (believe me, I am), but unions are pain in the ass organisations habitually run by self-serving shop-steward types who are the antithesis to anything creative, other than possibly their own expense accounts. I dislike unions, not writers.
The real culprit in the USA is perhaps the rather lax anti-trust legislation which allows quasi-monopolies (eg the sewn-up distribution network and ridiculously low across-the-board DVD net payments which you allude to). I'm not sure there's an answer to the artwork vs scriptwriter debate because I'm sure the artwork creator would argue vehemently the other way!
The fact that Michael Eisner was paid that much is I think irrelevant. He joins the same club as Bob Diamond, Hank Paulson and Philip Green (who paid himself - or rather his wife - a US$2billion dividend in 2006). Disney shareholders were happy(ish) to sanction such big money, presumably because they believed Eisner was making profits for his shareholders, which was his job. Philip Green was paid more than everyone in his whole company (with 1000s of employees). Chief executive pay is a different argument altogether to the union debate, and is a subject intrinsically unfair across many levels, but I can't see that aspect of corporate culture changing, just as I can't see the end of multimillion dollar deals for the 'best' in whatever field.
Do we begrudge it when Spielberg takes home US$72m in gross points and pay on a single project? Maybe we do, and maybe we don't.
The US has such diverse union problems that many non-US productions set in the US do not film in the US because of the restrictive and overbearing unionisation. They go to the Isle of Man, or wherever, and they ask any SAG actors to waive any entitlements under the SAG Collective Bargaining Agreement.
In the end, any studio/WGA/SAG debate will have to end in compromise, and the problem with strikes is that the people who get hurt are always the lower-earners in the chain, who cannot afford not to earn for an extended period.
The studios know that, the WGA knows that, and you and I know that. I hope there's no strike and a compromise can be reached. It would be in everyone's interest.
Believe me, I'm one of the few folks who were around for the last strike, and I wouldn't want to give the impression that I'm favoring a new strike. I'm not.
But I know a number of the people who have been in on the negotiations and they are by no means "shop steward" types.
And if you think that mines would be safer, or that the lives of miners were better or would be better if it was simply mine owners on one side and individual miners who had the freedom to work according to the deal the miners gave or "quite and go somewhere else" -- and where would that be? Another mine with better working conditions?
What's clear is that no one is going to give someone more than they have to. What gets a better deal, at every level, is leverage.
If I'm an independent contractor -- say I paint houses, and you're somebody who wants your house painted, there's a certain equivalence between employer and employee. There are scores of independent contractors in any area offering the service, thousands of people who are looking for the service.
If I'm doing the hiring and I don't like what you charge, I'll go looking somewhere else. If I don't like the quality of your work, I won't hire you again. If I'm the contractor and I don't like what you're offering, I'll go look for another job. If you're a pain in the ass to work for, I won't work for you again.
From both sides, there are plenty of other people out there to hire painters. Plenty of other people who do the work of painting.
There's a kind of parity -- an equivalence of leverage.
But that parity doesn't apply when you have a handful of employers and thousands of employees, as in the case of major corporations and their employees.
When you have a major studio, or a big producer, or a big network (or fill in any big corporation) on one side, and an individual writer or worker on the other, the leverage of the worker is miniscule.
When one side of a bargain gets to essentially dictate all of the terms of the transaction, irrespective of the value of the product in question, because their leverage is so much greater, that is intrinsically unfair.
Put all the writers, or workers together and all of sudden it isn't simply one worker against a corporation that routinely hires and fires thousands -- and has a choice of thousands, and thus is free to dictate terms to thousands.
Rather, it's a handful of corporations on one side -- and thousands of writers/workers on the other.
That isn't communism -- it's an organized attempt to achieve some degree of parity of leverage between employer and employee.
It's easy to point to abuses on the part of unions. Are there abuses? Of course. Because certain unions have become powerful and any time any entity becomes powerful and entrenched there are going to be be abuses.
But guess what? Corporations are even more powerful and even more entrenched and if you think that there aren't abuses of power on the part of major corporations, maybe you need to do a web search on words like Enron and Haliburton and Wal-Mart (+employee lawsuits).
If I oppose a strike, it isn't because I think that management is somehow the victim of unfair leftist communististic labor meanies.
It's because I don't believe that a strike will work. Certainly not a strike by the WGA on it's own. It was tried twenty years ago. The results were a disaster. To the extent that anything has changed, the changes only favor management rather than us.
The only possibility of a successful labor action that I can see is for us to work without a contract (if management is prepared to let us do that), and wait for SAG and the DGA's contracts to expire.
If all three guilds go out (and it's a big question mark about the DGA, which has always been a management friendly guild) then there is a possibility that something might be accomplished, but even with SAG and the WGA together, it would be tough.
If all three guilds walk out, that would basically shut down the business -- shut down movies, TV production -- and live TV, because all of those live TV directors and associated DGA personnel walk out. No Today Show. No Good Morning America. No Oprah. No Name-Your-Sport. Nothing.
Then, suddenly, they'd be at the table, and we'd be in a position to negotiate a decent deal. Real Fast.
But that's not to say that this will be possible. The producers may not allow that convocation to occur. They may force the WGA to accept a deal when the contract expires by refusing, on their end, to allow us to work without a contract. That is, they may "lock us out" -- put us in the position of having to accept what's on the table, or strike.
That would have a significant advantage on their side. If we accept whatever crappy deal they offer -- and it will be a crappy deal, or even better (from their perspective), if we go out on strike, and ultimately cave in and accept their crappy deal, or something very close to it, which we inevitably will, because our pockets are so incredibly shallow compared to theirs, and thus their ability to outwait us is so much greater -- then they are in a position to take whatever we've accepted as a precedent into their negotiations with the other guilds.
From our perspective it's a lousy lose/lose situation. The only reason that I oppose a strike is because I believe, in the end, we'd lose more -- and that the only reason we end up getting the votes for a strike last time (and will get the votes for one this time, if we do) is because so many members of our guild are people who are not actively working and earning a living as writers. It's easy to be radical and to talk of principles if you have a day job, or if you're retired, or if you wrote one screenplay ten years ago, but you really do something else for a living. What the hell does it really cost you to go out on strike?
That was my deal twenty years ago. I had a day job. I could afford to listen to the firebrands. I actually believed the stuff that the people on the podiums were telling me.
But not now.
I think that the chances of the WGA winning a strike on our own are zero and I oppose it on that basis.
But the producers are still dead wrong.
NMS
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 333
- Reaction score
- 10
- Location
- The Appallachians
- Website
- www.horror-movies.ca
Pardon the interruption, but IS anyone here a member of the Writer's Guild? Kind of curious about that, myself.
Hi NMS
I agree with you about leverage.
I just have this thing about striking, or being told to strike, or forced to strike even if I vote against a strike (which would be my right as a union member). I do not think that it is right that an organisation can restrict a worker's right to work, if, say, he is offered work during a strike that he never wanted.
One final comment before I go and put away my 'political' hat: in most businesses, grievances about pay boil down to relativity - eg 'so and so's paid more than me. It's not fair' - and not absolute terms.
The sun is out...and a new day dawns...
I agree with you about leverage.
I just have this thing about striking, or being told to strike, or forced to strike even if I vote against a strike (which would be my right as a union member). I do not think that it is right that an organisation can restrict a worker's right to work, if, say, he is offered work during a strike that he never wanted.
One final comment before I go and put away my 'political' hat: in most businesses, grievances about pay boil down to relativity - eg 'so and so's paid more than me. It's not fair' - and not absolute terms.
The sun is out...and a new day dawns...
I'M ALL FOR WRITERS. I AM ONE! I'M NOT AGAINST THE WGA. I JUST HATE THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT COMES WITH ANY UNION.
IF I LIVED IN THE USA I'D PROBABLY BE A MEMBER OF THE WGA BY DEFAULT AND BE FRETTING ABOUT A POSSIBLE STRIKE. AND FRETTING ABOUT MONEY TOO, PROBABLY.
Hi NMS
I agree with you about leverage.
I just have this thing about striking, or being told to strike, or forced to strike even if I vote against a strike (which would be my right as a union member). I do not think that it is right that an organisation can restrict a worker's right to work, if, say, he is offered work during a strike that he never wanted.
One final comment before I go and put away my 'political' hat: in most businesses, grievances about pay boil down to relativity - eg 'so and so's paid more than me. It's not fair' - and not absolute terms.
The sun is out...and a new day dawns...
Would you believe that it would be okay, if you agreed to do a job for somebody for a particular amount of money, if they then paid you that money, that they would then be allowed to "tell" you to do the job?
Would that be okay?
Well, there's a word for that. It's called a contract.
That's how contracts work. Nobody holds a gun to your head and forces you to sign. You do it voluntarily. Because you do that, you get certain things, and you also give up certain things.
For instance, one of the things you get is that the guild, not the producers, gets to determine final credit on any movie written by Guild writers. So you don't have a situation where you work on something for a couple years and then see the Producer's name, who's contribution consisted of suggesting that maybe the hero ought to be a pirate (an idea that you didn't take) ending up in the credits as screenwriter instead of yours.
In fact, if the name of any producer or a director, is even submitted as a possible credit, credit arbitration is automatic. The writer can't even refuse to have the credit arbitrated (because clearly, there can be tremendous pressure brought to go along with such a credit).
Royalty and residual payments -- all negotiated -- and collected -- through the guild.
Pension and welfare payments -- collected through the guild.
But for the things that you get, you have to agree to follow the terms of the MBA -- and that means, among other things, you can't do non-guild work, and if the guild votes to strike, you can't be a scab.
I signed up with the Guild, and by doing that, I agreed to abide by the terms of the MBA -- the minimum basic agreement, some terms of which I agree with, some I don't.
The producer who sit down at the table to negotiate with us, have put their signature to the same document.
They get something for that -- the ability to have access to the services of every professional writer currently working in the WGA, but they also have to give something. They also have to abide by the restrictions imposed on them by that agreement.
It's a contract. No one puts a gun to anyone's head. Roger Corman's company, for instance, isn't a signatory. They don't pay guild minimum. They don't have to abide by guild rules regarding credits. They don't pay into any pension fund. And if you *aren't* a member of the guild, you're free to work for them. And they are free to hire any writer who isn't a member of the guild and pay them as little or as much as they want.
But if you're a member of the guild, you can't work for them -- not because anybody is "forcing" you -- but because you've agreed not to.
And if you're a producer who's signed the MBA -- you can't hire a non-guild writer and pay him non-guild wages to write for you for the same reason. Not because somebody is "forcing you" --any more than anybody is forcing Roger Corman to do anything -- but because you're agreed to it.
That's not communism or socialism or capitalism or fascism. It's contract law. Two parties agree to something and then abide by their agreement.
NMS
i don't get what's the problem. you don't have to be a member. no one will force you to join. there is no "default" in becoming a member just because you're a writer. don't join and leave it at that.
tangent alert:
i live in a city that doesn't have the power to vote in congress or the senate. i live in a city that years ago voted a crackhead in as mayor. but, no one forces me to live here or support those decisions made by others.
This is an example, however you try and argue it, of contract law leading to a restrictive practice. The resultant situation applies pressure on non-signatories to sign because otherwise they're left out. It is the classic example of a closed shop.
It should be challengeable in law, and perhaps one day it will be. It is hardly free trade. A contract can say anything as long as it's not illegal. Paying someone more or less than WGA minimums is not illegal, it merely breaches the terms of a restrictive contract entered into with multiple parties but possibly excluding the payor or payee.
For example, if I agree not to hire any gardener that is not a member of the gardeners' union and then there's a gardener's strike, I either do the gardening myself or pay someone to do it in breach of my own restrictive agreement or I let the garden wither and die, which I absolutely do not want to do.
If I decide to breach my agreement and hire a non-union gardener then what is the proper sanction for that? Damages? Whose contract have I breached? It is the one I entered into with the gardener's union. And what if the strike is resolved and I want to rehire a union gardener? Am I barred from offering gainful employment to a union gardener in future because I refused to let my garden die? What would the WGA say?
Substitute nurses for gardeners and you have people dying.
we do have federal laws that limit the ability of some professions to strike. but writing is never a life and death matter so it doesn't apply.
You've said the truest thing here NikeeGoddess: it's never life and death. I'm going to open a bottle of wine.
From today's RapidTV News site:
The powerful WGA is saying its members will stop working from November 1 unless new terms can be reached. Their grumble concerns residual fees – or the lack of them – for lucrative internet and even cell-phone exploitation of material. Further discussions are scheduled for September 19, but previous talks broke down without much sign of harmony. The current WGA-studio agreement expires on October 31, hence the Nov 1 threat...
....Some experts suggest the WGA is not powerful enough to go it alone, but the industry knows that in June next year the Screen Actors Guild is due to start similar talks with the studios – and they’re seen as a tougher bunch. Together with the WGA the SAG could bring the studios to heel.
Which is why some broadcasters are seeking “insurance”. US Trade mag Variety has spoken of UK shows like Footballers’ Wives and similar UK fare being potential beneficiaries from the threatened action. US broadcasters used to be ultra-sensitive about British accents on TV, but with celebrities like Simon Cowell now a regular on the US media scene, those anxieties are less.
Good for those bloody Brits, I suppose...
The powerful WGA is saying its members will stop working from November 1 unless new terms can be reached. Their grumble concerns residual fees – or the lack of them – for lucrative internet and even cell-phone exploitation of material. Further discussions are scheduled for September 19, but previous talks broke down without much sign of harmony. The current WGA-studio agreement expires on October 31, hence the Nov 1 threat...
....Some experts suggest the WGA is not powerful enough to go it alone, but the industry knows that in June next year the Screen Actors Guild is due to start similar talks with the studios – and they’re seen as a tougher bunch. Together with the WGA the SAG could bring the studios to heel.
Which is why some broadcasters are seeking “insurance”. US Trade mag Variety has spoken of UK shows like Footballers’ Wives and similar UK fare being potential beneficiaries from the threatened action. US broadcasters used to be ultra-sensitive about British accents on TV, but with celebrities like Simon Cowell now a regular on the US media scene, those anxieties are less.
Good for those bloody Brits, I suppose...
Last edited: