Screenwriting : Strike Authorization by James Grant Goldin

I think WGAW members should seek better representation.

they were always going to seek auth. it gives them leverage. doesnt mean anything...yet.

WGA members are tweeting 'bout the strike & what's at stake. Doesn't make sense for aspiring non-wga Writers to diss strikers. You want to work with other Writers in the American Industry, right?

Yep. Watching WGA and SagAftra over new media. ....Welcome to "season".....

"Yeah. WGA gets strike authorization, AMPTP decides whether they give more or not. Weeks or months go by. Everyone suffers until AMPTP finally gives in to streaming 2 week script window and Health & Pension funding with no rollbacks."

You're not the boss of me. You come at an exec with a list of reasonable requests, you're negotiating - and you're likely to get at least most of what you want; you come at someone with a mob, making threats, and a list of DEMANDS, you better hope your wiseguy buddies buy you some nice shoes.

Because you are going to be walking that pavement for a hot minute.

Learn your approach and learn who the hell you're talking to. These are the same people who brought you Pres. Trump. If you want to see a similar outcome, go ahead and be Tough Guys.

C Harris Lynn, youre not right about this. thats not how wga negotiations go. and no one voted for trump.

Since non WGA members look at WGA conditions as a yard stick I think they should hold out. Rights, payments and ongoing ownership of work is important.

C Harris--- Com'on... these folks on both sides have been doing this for years. They have seasoned union lawyers and negotiators at the table... who all know one another... they know the process and the nature of collective bargaining. Sometimes parties just don't agree and workers have to strike. Sometimes not. Almost always there is this posturing phase. WGA knows what it's doing... so does the AMPTP. This isn't Jimmy Hoffa at table.

C Harris. That is not at all how the WGA works. Not even close.

C Harris has a point. Unyielding WGA demands are partly to blame for the existence of "Reality TV". And what earthly good has that ever done for anyone?

"Reality TV?" Well my friend worked for MTV reality shows and he was able to pay his mortgage, kids' education, made a good living. And MTV/Viacom got rich. All the key MTV executives got 7-figure xmas bonus checks. The Writers received 0 compensation.

Patrick--the negotiations are secret. Nobody knows how yielding or unyielding anyone's demands are. All we can say a this point is the two sides are not giving the other what it wants. We have no idea what's really on the table or what's been yielded or not. Why does everyone assume the WGA is being the cranky brat in the room demanding more than it deserves? Sheesh.

Yet Dan M makes my point for me: Where was the WGA for those reality TV writers - many of whom were/are members? And all those lawyers absolutely do know one another, and the WGA can only strike once every 10 years (it used to be 20), so... I actually have an excellent idea as to how this works, and I'll explain it to you - again (the first time suddenly got deleted - by "The Russians," I'm so sure):

Everyone voted for Sanders to be the Dem candidate, and the very people running those WGA talks told us to go screw. They put up Clinton, embezzled all the donations to Sanders to the DNC, murdered the man who served them papers, then told the court that WE all knew they were crooked in the first place so we don't deserve our donations back. Your wiseguy buddies made commercials, organized flash mobs - the entire cast of The West Wing reunited and Joss Whedon did something that had nothing to do with Buffy, so no one paid attention - and they manipulated the media and the polls, knowing full well that Clinton lost to Trump in every actual poll. So now we have Donald Trump for President and their response is, "Not MY President!" Because, you know, that's how it works.

Do the Walk of Shame - just like they did - if that's how you want to play it. All those friendly, millionaire lawyers at the table - and all the WGA leaders - are going to be fine. They'll be buying $250k plate lunches at DNC fundraisers while you walk around.

Learn something.

C Harris--Do you think we all don't know that the people in the room are all the elite of Hollyweird? And many of them are producers as well. Go figure that conflict of interest. Always warped my head, but right now they're more writers than producers. Rich writers (for the most part probably--I don't know what's in their bank accounts--dont' really care). Every writer in Hollywood should be able to buy $250K lunches wherever they want. That's the point of all this. Frankly, I'm not sure what we're even debating here. Does anyone know?

I'm with you there, man! I'm with all of them on those points. Yet - from what has been reported (and that's all we have to go on) - they agreed to pay the writers more, and agreed to a handful of other things, then they told them to STRIKE! Just like the last time, no one really knows why - no one really knows anything - but they're so ready to hold the entire industry hostage because... ???

And the WGA offers insurance - so why are they demanding better coverage from the networks? Just for one sticking-point. That's why I'm neither concerned, nor looking to join - even if I qualify - and I refuse to support them in a strike. A strike, like Trump as President, doesn't affect those people clamoring for it; it only affects everyone else.

Why would anyone be so ready to throw away their careers and livelihood for... you know, "Things didn't work-out?" WHAT "Things?" Why aren't these negotiations made known to the members, if not the public at-large? It sounds like THE MEMBERS got what they wanted, so what's the hassle?

This is how the negotiations are characterized in the letter (some minor edits covered by my ellipses) :

....“We began the negotiations with two truths about the current state of the business at the heart of our proposals:

First, that these have been very profitable years for the companies. This past year they earned $51 billion in profits, a record.

Second, that the economic position of writers has declined sharply in the last five or so years. Screenwriters have been struggling for a long time. They are now joined by television writers, for whom short seasons are at the core of the problem. In the last two years alone, the average salary of TV wri ter-producers fell by 23%. Those declines have not been offset by compensation in other areas. In Basic Cable and new media, our script fees and residual formulas continue to trail far behind those in broadcast - even though these new platforms are every bit as profitable as the old model.

In light of all this, we sought to tackle a number of issues that directly affect the livelihoods of all writers.

--We asked for modest gains for screenwriters, most particularly a guaranteed second-step for writers earning below a certain compensation level.

--We asked for a rational policy on family leave.

--We sought to address chronically low pay for Comedy Variety writers.

--We asked for 3% increases in minimums - and increases in the residual formula for High Budget SVOD programs commensurate with industry standards.

--We made a comprehensive proposal to deal with the pernicious effects of short seasons. This included a limit on the amortization of episodic fees to two weeks, a proposal that sought to replicate the standard that had been accepted in the business for decades. It addressed, as well, the continued problems with Options and Exclusivity. And it sought to address the MBA’s outdated schedule of weekly minimums, which no longer adequately compensates writers for short terms of work.

--Finally, we sought to address script fee issues – in basic cable and streaming – but also in the case of Staff Writers. Unconscionably, our lowest paid members are now often held at the staff level for multiple seasons, with no compensation for the scripts they write.

What was the companies’ response to these proposals?

….. --Nothing for screenwriters. Nothing for Staff Writers. Nothing on diversity.

--On Family Leave they rejected our proposal and simply pledged to obey all applicable State and Federal laws – as if breaking the law were ever an option.

--On short seasons, they offered a counter-proposal that addressed the issue in name only - thus helping no one.

--They have yet to offer anything on minimums, or on HBSVOD.

--They have made some small moves on Options & Exclusivity – some small moves for Comedy Variety writers in Pay TV. But that is all.

….In response to our proposal to protect our Pension and Health Plans, this has been their answer:

Nothing on Pension.

And on our Health Plan, two big rollbacks.

First, they have demanded that we make cuts to the plan - $10 million in the first year alone. In return, they will allow us to fund the plan with money diverted from our own salaries.

More, they've demanded the adoption of a draconian measure in which any future shortfalls to the plan would be made up by automatic cuts in benefits - and never by increases in employer contributions.

This, too, is unacceptable.The package, taken as a whole, is unacceptable - and we would be derelict in our duty if we accepted it.

Therefore, your Negotiating Committee has voted unanimously to recommend that the WGAW Board of Directors and WGAE Council conduct a strike authorization vote by the membership.

Once again, we are committed to continue negotiating with the companies in good faith to get you the deal we all deserve. We will continue to update you as things progress.

Respectfully,

The Negotiating Committee Members of the WGA West and WGA East

"Nothing on diversity." What is this in regards to? Thanks.

James... well, that should clear a few things up here :) Thanks for sharing this.

The WGA is working to protect the interests of it's members, that's what labour unions are supposed to do... and working screenwriters in TV and Film face these issue, that's why they are the negotiating points in the first place.

I'm not a professional screenwriter, so none of these things effect me personally, but I support those represented by the WGA and their right to take action as needed to get their members the best deal... that's what they pay their union dues for.

I see no reason, whatsoever, to believe that statement.

Okay, from The Jeffersons to Good Times to The Golden Girls to Scrubs to Black-ish to Fresh off the Boat to The Good Place to Grey's Anatomy to Superstore to This is Us, TV is so overwhelmingly "diversive" that it sometimes forces viewers to work to suspend our disbelief. There is literally a panel today entitled "What's Happening Now" and I promise half of my questions will involve Rerun, Dee, and the gang.

If they put that in there to entice you to strike, that's propaganda and you should be outraged. If they included that statement as some kind of "dealbreaker," they're playing you for schmucks. No wonder the execs refuse to deal with them! If you walked into my office making demands, then accused me of being a White Supremacist when you didn't get your way, I would put you bodily through a plate glass window.

Sorry, I'm barely through my first cup. What I meant to say is: I would have security put you through a plate glass window.

Most of the requests I saw seem perfectly reasonable. I see no other reason why the networks would stonewall or refuse most of those things, and I don't believe they did. It sounds like your buddies have made some backroom deals with people the studios and networks refuse to deal with. I have zero interest in the WGAW.

^^^^ Hey HEY Hey! He's right, you know.

Ah CHL, you might be right but as far as I can see you have NO inside knowledgel, are not a member of the WGA or Producers Guild or have any connection to anyone else involved in the negotiations.

Assuming that's true, please correct me if I'm wrong, then what you are saying is that in your opinion the people representing working writers have done a deal with some people who the studios and networks won't deal with... who exactly are these people they are doing shady deals with - Spectre?

The WGA deal covers networks and studios who sign up to it, so if you are implying that they are playing one side off against another to get a better deal, we'll there isn't another side in this argument, the writers work for the 'establishment' or rhey don't work.

The OP specifically asks for 'thoughts?', responding to questions is generally how discussion forums work ;-)

I'm Old School and from the music biz, Anthony. I have some idea as to how these things "work." I'm not going to point fingers, but there are certain "political organizations" that are nothing more than fronts for organized crime. The WGAW, and an awful lot of what we call "Hollywood," appears to be beholden unto such entities. That "diversity" statement is one odd duck to throw about, and was not addressed anywhere else. TV is extremely diverse, both in front of and behind the camera.

Almost everyone I've spoken to, pitched to, and seen on panels has been female, and numerous "minorities" are directly engaging us through forums and outlets such as this one. There are numerous female execs working in Hollywood and TV - there have been for many years. This has nothing to do with any of that. These people need to know their roles and quit playing politics - one look toward the White House should tell you that their grasp of such things is at the third-grade "Social Studies" level, and their approach is known colloquially as "Strongarming."

It sounds to me like they got into bed with some very unsavory characters and now they're trying to pull everyone else down with them - a "Scorched Earth" policy - which is exactly what they did in the last Presidential Election. Look how that tuned out.

They're bad for business and they'll be pointing fingers at anyone and everyone, name-calling and gaslighting, to get their way. We saw that here, on this very site, recently. They're bad news - and fake news, to boot.

As a member of the WGA I do not believe the guild is beholden to such entities as organized crime. It seems C is going back to the unions (not guilds) of the 1930's. All we want is a bigger piece of the pie. Producers want to pay less, writers want more. Not exactly a radical situation.

It isn't what you want; it's how you're going about getting it. And your'e projecting, pointing fingers, and gaslighting... just like I said you would. I told you I know a thing or two about this. ;)

D - and it's the same the world over... the workers (insert writers) want more, bosses (insert producers) want to pay less, and in all/most democratic societies the workers are represented by a union from a collective bargaining point of view (even if it's now called a guild) and so the circle of life goes on.

CHL - cannot prove that you are wrong re organized crime, but unsavory characters, scorched earth etc just sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense to me, might make for a decent script though ;-)

Not entirely sure what these WGA writers did during the Presidential election apart from vote and I guess some/most were anti-Trump, as most liberal arts types tend to be... did they do something specific I missed?

No, Anthony - not that I know of (lol). I was referring more to the "Liberal Elite in Hollywood," as they've taken to referring to themselves: The folks who came out in overwhelming support of Frau Clinton, despite the fact that no one was fooled by the media's blatant manipulation, and no one voted for her as the Dem nom. My point being that those who can afford $250k plate lunches for Democratic nominees (or Republican - it just so happens to be the other side of the same machine in this case) are the ones sabotaging these negotiations and forcing the members' collective hand.

Yeh well reality tv is a lot like fast food at the mall. Just watching the results makes you never want to eat or write again