WGAw splits off - Top Ten New Concessions
Topos
Well, it looks like it's a sad day for writers. I cannot speak as a Guild
member, and I'm sure my knowledge of the issues is less than perfect (everyone
should read the arguments posted at wga.org), but I can say that the
negotiating power of all writers has suffered a blow. If I were on the other
side, I'd be laughing right now. A union splitting in two because many of
them are happy with the status quo? I'd personally offer even less. Without
a united front, writers will be treated worse than they are now.
To help ease the pain, I've written a top ten list for comic relief:
TOP TEN CONCESSIONS OF THE NEW CONTRACT
10. Alicia Silverstone only gets final cut and rewriting power on her own
movies. The rest are Alicia free!
9. The producers have allowed the continued use of #2 pencils by writers. If
they can't afford a #2 pencil, one will be provided for them (cost deducted
from health contributions).
8. Writers may still break the thumb rule, although in The Hustler provision,
writers may subsequently have their own thumbs broken.
7. For the first time ever, writers will see a significant portion of
eight-track residuals (which we have been assured are making a comeback)
6. Changing the writer's credit to read "Words filled in by" has been narrowly
rejected, although the issue may be revisited.
5. Writers still have the option of using the word 'impact' correctly,
although everyone else will freely use it as a verb outside the realm of
molars and colons.
4. If a writer works a six hour shift, he or she is entitled to a meal at 1/2
price. The opportunity to become an assistant manager in six months is still
there for those who are go-getters.
3. Every producer will go through sensitivity training, in which he will have
to write an original paragraph. That paragraph will then be rewritten
countless times as he watches.
2. A fraction of a gross point on all releases will go toward a new program
which will subsidize copying at Kinko's for new screenwriters. The program,
entitled "Making A Slow Death Even Slower," successfully survived fierce
opposition from the environmental contingency.
1. Every poor writer will receive a free tombstone, written in Courier 12
point. Here the thumb rile will be strictly enforced.
Eric
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
"That guy doesn't have any nuts. I know...because I reached down and tried to
tear them off."
- Said at contract negotiations?
Mkword
Eric,
You're joking, right?
The west and east are separate unions. The west
has several times urged the merger of the unions
and the east has always rejected the idea.
Reality: the vast majority of professional feature
and television writers are in the WGA/west.
The negotiating power of writers is found in
network television; a writers medium and exactly
the industry where a strike will have any real impact
at all. Almost all the major network shows are
produced and written out of Los Angeles.
The truth is the WGA/west board of directors voted
14-4 to have separate negotiations is in large part due to the fact that they
felt the WGA/east misrepresented
the contract (namely by only including a "con"
statement in the ballot packet and no "pro" statements)
even though their own council approved it.
Topos
>From: mkw...@aol.com (Mkword)
>Eric,
>
>You're joking, right?
>
>The west and east are separate unions. The west
>has several times urged the merger of the unions
>and the east has always rejected the idea.
>
>Reality: the vast majority of professional feature
>and television writers are in the WGA/west.
>
>The negotiating power of writers is found in
>network television; a writers medium and exactly
>the industry where a strike will have any real impact
>at all. Almost all the major network shows are
>produced and written out of Los Angeles.
>
Yes, a good portion of the post was meant as humor (am I the only one who likes
the notion of tombstones in Courier 12 pt? ;).
And I specifically did try to qualify my position as a new writer, not in the
Guild, and not familiar with all the issues or the history (what I know I've
gotten from the arguments on the wga.org site, which I recommend to everyone).
I was commenting more on overall strategies in negotiations in general, rather
than this specific contract (which I won't be voting on). While east and west
are separate unions, I read that this is the first time the WGAw will
negotiate separately. As you mention, WGAe will have little bargaining
power--seems to me they're probably being left out to pasture. I can't
imagine them winning concessions unless the west votes down the contract.
What if the west votes down the contract? I can only hope that the Guild
unifies around that decision - I'd hate to see a WGAwy and a WGAwn (tongue in
cheek, somewhat). My point being that dissension within a group like the
guild will harm any chance for improvements. Think of OPEC (Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Companies, basically the Oil Cartel for those who aren't
into these things). As long as one country is willing to sell oil at a low
price, the others have no choice but to follow. If all the oil producing
countries can agree not to accept anything below a certain price, then
everyone can benefit.
I wouldn't presume to comment on this contract, but it looks like many people
won't be happy. I can't imagine the east liking the west's move, and however
the west vote turns out, there'll likely be a large contingent that voted the
other way. Perhaps a new contract could be hammered out in the eight months
before the current one runs out, but for concessions to be made, the writers
would truly have to negotiate from a position of strength, which means united
and willing to sacrifice if necessary.
I've probably said too much already, but I simply urge all Guild members to
read all the arguments and vote, so that the result will reflect the members' wishes.
Eric
Mkword
Eric writes:
>As you mention, WGAe will have little bargaining
> power--seems to me they're probably being left out >to pasture. I can't
imagine them winning concessions >unless the west votes down the contract.
Your logic seems ... illogical.
How in the world could the east win concessions
if the west votes down their contract?
They are now separate contracts. Doesn't matter
what the west does, vote yay or nay, the east has
negotiate their own.
>What if the west votes down the contract? I can
>only hope that the Guild unifies around that
>decision -
Why? The west already voted "yes" by 57%.
In what sense does unification necessitate
a "no" vote on the contract. Remember,
the two guilds are separate guilds. There
is no unity and there never really was any.
>I wouldn't presume to comment on this contract,
>but it looks like many people won't be happy.
57% who voted for the contract.
>Perhaps a new contract could be hammered out
>in the eight months before the current one runs out,
It will.
>but for concessions to be made, the writers
> would truly have to negotiate from a position of >strength, which means
united
> and willing to sacrifice if necessary.
The position of strength comes from the vast
majority of television writers in Los Angeles.
You seem to completely miss that point.
Sacrifice may or may not get us concessions.
It certainly didn't get us much in 1988.
Mkword
>And how much money did the WGAw spend (using WGAw
>funds) to push people to vote against the
>ratification? How much money did Brian Walton
>appropriate for his mailings to 8000 members on
>the reasons why *not* to vote for the
>ratification? Aren't you being just a little bit
>hypocritical?
>
>
>
No.
I don't even begin to see hypocrisy.
I'm simply relating the facts as they've
been reported.
Indeed, I find the fact that the west spent
a lot of time and effort making sure all members
received both "pro" and "con" statements
before the election as being a sensible and
equitable process.
You're only attempting to deflect the issue
away from what is truly disturbing:
Why wouldn't the east include any "pro"
statements in their ballot packet? Especially
when their own council approved ratification.
Disgusted
There's already been a vote. Like it or not, the
contract was not ratified. This move to
invalidate the vote only shows how far some people
will go in their efforts to debase the "democratic
principles" of the Writers Guild.
>
>What if the west votes down the contract? I can only hope that the Guild
> unifies around that decision -
> I simply urge all Guild members to
Mkword
Genia writes:
>And honestly, I believe that if the contract we're >given to vote on next
month is substantially the same
>as the one we voted on last month, it wouldn't >surprise me a bit if the vote
weren't MUCH closer >than last time. It might even get narrowly voted
>down.
It's possible. But I doubt it. I think the margin
of ratification will actually be greater the next time
around. Why? Because all the members I've
talked to who didn't vote are for the contract. In
fact, they didn't vote because they didn't think
it was a big deal.
Now that people have seen that the push to
vote against the contract is supported by
writers who have no workable alternative to this contract and seem to be hoping
for a strike, I think
more members will come out in support of the
contract.
>And you're also right that to get a better deal than
>the one we voted on last month we'd have to
>negotiate as a united body willing to strike if
>need be to get what we want.
The current contract looks good to me. The big
issue the people against the contract have is
the foreign and cable residuals. This is what
we went on strike for in '88. We didn't get it
then and no one against the contract is explaining
how we could get it with a second strike.
Everyone talks about negotiating from a position
of power. Well ... the power is in the WGA/west,
not the WGA/east.
Position of strength or power comes down to
the willingness and ability to strike and strike
in a way that will really hurt management.
Let's look at the two greatest weapons the
WGA has in a strike.
1) The strike fund. We've squirreled away
millions and millions of dollars for a strike.
It won't pay every writer's food bills or mortgage,
but it will allow the guild to threaten a prolonged
strike, even at the expense of some members.
Who was that strike fund? The WGA/west.
2) Writers are not garbage men or cops. We
don't run mass transit or the hospitals.
i.e., we don't have the ability to create a
crippling strike of essential services. The
feature business can go on for a year or more
without buying any scripts as they already
have hundreds of projets in development. They
would scurry to make sure they had writers
on all these projects and they would continue
buying books ... and wait the strike out.
Who can the Guild really hurt? The television
networks.
With a strike, the WGA can shut down production
instantly on all staffed television shows. That
means Seinfeld, ER, Doctor Quinn all stop
making shows and the networks have maybe
a few completed shows left to air and then it's
rerun time. And the advertisers will not like that.
So ... the real power the Guild has in its
television writers. And the vast majority of
television writers on network prime-time
shows are members of the WGA/west.
So ... the strength of negotiating is really
found in the WGA/west.
Unity sounds nice, but it doesn't truly
make us stronger in terms of negotiating.
>I've heard too many stories from people whose >careers were irrevocably
damaged by the last
>strike. I don't want to derail mine when it's just
>getting started.
This is an issue that the people bucking for a
strike seem to miss.
How many careers will be destroyed by a strike?
Is it really worth throwing an "expendable" number
of writers away for what will surely be modest,
if not negligible, gains?
How many of us want to go to a Vietnam of
Residuals?
Rich Wilson
Mkword wrote:
>
> [Eric's comments snipped]
>
> How in the world could the east win concessions
> if the west votes down their contract?
>
> They are now separate contracts. Doesn't matter
> what the west does, vote yay or nay, the east has
> negotiate their own.
>
>
> The position of strength comes from the vast
> majority of television writers in Los Angeles.
> You seem to completely miss that point.
>
> Sacrifice may or may not get us concessions.
> It certainly didn't get us much in 1988.
Hi Nick,
As some folks here may know, AFTRA and SAG have been
talking for YEARS about merging into a single union. There
are many common interests, and as it is, the contracts in
overlapping jurisdictions (TV commercials, industrials,
etc.) use nearly identical language, to save the time and
expense of unnecessarily duplicated contract negotiations.
AFTRA-SAG merger fever has been very high for the past
year or so, and one of the biggest arguments is the ongoing
merger-mania among media conglomerates. Their bargaining
power is so huge now that many performers feel they need
more juice -- by joining forces entirely -- just to retain
the status quo, much less gain more ground.
During my time as an AFTRA officer I watched this
process move forward gradually. But lately the unions have
been mum about progress, if any, toward merger. There are
big obstacles here because the pension plans are structured
very differently, along with some significant differences
in some of the jurisidicitons (e.g., a staff radio news
editor in AFTRA has litle in common with a freelance film
extra in SAG -- among many other examples). So it is
understandable that *these* unions would find unification
difficult, after their totally separate evolutions.
But I confess that the conflict between the WGA east
and west strikes me as somewhat surprising. Many WGAw
signatory producers have already been parts of large
conglomerates, I suppose, so perhaps the members do not see
that changing corporate power structure as presenting an
increasingly difficult negotiating environment.
But are they missing anything? I wonder if we are
witnessing the breakdown of bargaining power of all these
craft unions, as they turn away from unity -- and
negotiating power -- at what may turn out to be a crucial
moment. I was watching from the sidelines, and remember all
the dissension of 1988. But I'm very curious whether the
guild's negotiating posture might not be stronger today
since the income stakes have continued to rise, due to the
explosion in worldwide distribution.
I confess to some naivete on that question, and will
take Eric's advice and check the website for more info.
Meanwhile: here's the recent history of labor as it
relates to the film biz: the actors and writers may end up
giving more and more concessions, but it's fairly certain
the trailers are always gonna be hauled by Teamsters. ;-)
--
Rich Wilson
http://www.communicator.com
WriteTV
to...@aol.com (Topos) writes:
>I wouldn't presume to comment on this contract, but it looks like many
>people
> won't be happy. I can't imagine the east liking the west's move, and
>however
> the west vote turns out, there'll likely be a large contingent that voted
>the
> other way. Perhaps a new contract could be hammered out in the eight months
> before the current one runs out, but for concessions to be made, the writers
> would truly have to negotiate from a position of strength, which means
>united
> and willing to sacrifice if necessary.
>
You're right -- the east isn't happy. Neither are some very vocal members
of the west. And honestly, I believe that if the contract we're given to
vote on next month is substantially the same as the one we voted on last
month, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the vote weren't MUCH closer than
last time. It might even get narrowly voted down. I hope not, but it's
possible.
And you're also right that to get a better deal than the one we voted on
last month we'd have to negotiate as a united body willing to strike if
need be to get what we want. We're not united, and I'd say less than half
of those who voted last time would be willing to strike. I know I'm not.
I've heard too many stories from people whose careers were irrevocably
damaged by the last strike. I don't want to derail mine when it's just
getting started.
FWIW...
Genia
-----------------------------------------------
"If you change the P to an O, my name would be Oinky."
-- PINKY AND THE BRAIN
Wood1459
These questions are from a "bonehead/newbie/non member" so go easy on me.
How would a strike affect a new writer trying to break in? Would it be the
kiss of death?
If a strike does happen, will all writers stop working? If they did work, would
it be the same as crossing a picking line for the UAW?
If a strike is obvious, will the prodcos buy up a bunch of scripts in case it's
a long strike?
Just wondering,
Greg
Mkword
Disgusted writes
>There's already been a vote. Like it or not,
>the contract was not ratified. This move to
>invalidate the vote only shows how far some
>people will go in their efforts to debase the
>"democratic principles" of the Writers Guild.
Nice bit of sophistry. Too bad it doesn't
it doesn't hold water.
1) The west approved the contract with a 57
percent majority out of a total of 2685 votes.
Since the vast majority of professional feature
and television writers are in the WGA/west,
contract was ratified by the majority of working professional writers in film
and TV. The WGA
east, by contrast, cast a total of 589 votes. That
means that nationally the contract was voted
down by a margin of 16 votes. Since the MBA
affects far more writers in the WGA/west, in a
far more substantial manner than it does the writers
in the east, it seems a bit absurd to have a majority decision in the west
overturned by the east.
2) The WGA/east did not include a "pro"
statement in the ballot packet they sent to their
members. That doesn't seem in tune with the
"democratic principles" you mention.
3) This decision by the WGA/west is not an
attempt to "invalidate" the vote. It is a move
to separate the destinies of the two separate
guilds. If the east doesn't like the contract
the west negotiated, and misrepresents it to their
members ... it's probably a good idea that the
east now negotiate their own contract.
The contentious history between the two
different guilds is littered with antagonism
and accusation. Several proposals by the
west to merge the two unions have been
rebuffed by the east. To the point where
the east refused to even have a non-binding
referendum on the issue.
Clearly, the east is not particularly interested
in unity.
4) The decision to negotiate separately was
approved by a 14-4 vote by the Board of
Directors. That means that several board
members who were *against* the contract
found the actions of the WGA/east to be
unprinicpled and unfair. (refusing to include
a "pro" statement and refusing the West's request
for an observer to be present during the East count.)
Disgusted
Mkword shilled:
>Nice bit of sophistry. Too bad it doesn't
>it doesn't hold water.
>
>1) The west approved the contract with a 57
>percent majority out of a total of 2685 votes.
>Since the vast majority of professional feature
>and television writers are in the WGA/west,
>contract was ratified by the majority of working professional writers in film
> and TV. The WGA
>east, by contrast, cast a total of 589 votes. That
>means that nationally the contract was voted
>down by a margin of 16 votes. Since the MBA
>affects far more writers in the WGA/west, in a
>far more substantial manner than it does the writers
>in the east, it seems a bit absurd to have a majority decision in the west
> overturned by the east.
Then why were they allowed a vote in the first
place?
>2) The WGA/east did not include a "pro"
>statement in the ballot packet they sent to their
>members. That doesn't seem in tune with the
>"democratic principles" you mention.
Do you plan to address the expenditure of WGAw
funds for the pro-ratification mailings or are you
going to conveniently ignore this issue?
>3) This decision by the WGA/west is not an
>attempt to "invalidate" the vote. It is a move
>to separate the destinies of the two separate
>guilds.
They should have made their move to "invalidate"
the WGAe's vote before they issued the WGAe
ballots.
> If the east doesn't like the contract
>the west negotiated, and misrepresents it to their
>members ... it's probably a good idea that the
>east now negotiate their own contract.
Again, this should have been attended to *before*
the ballots were distributed.
>The contentious history between the two
>different guilds is littered with antagonism
>and accusation. Several proposals by the
>west to merge the two unions have been
>rebuffed by the east. To the point where
>the east refused to even have a non-binding
>referendum on the issue.
>
>Clearly, the east is not particularly interested
>in unity.
Have you considered shilling for Iran or Iraq?
>4) The decision to negotiate separately was
>approved by a 14-4 vote by the Board of
>Directors. That means that several board
>members who were *against* the contract
>found the actions of the WGA/east to be
>unprinicpled and unfair. (refusing to include
>a "pro" statement and refusing the West's request
>for an observer to be present during the East count.)
I'd be curious to know who was present to observe
the count here, delayed as it was for so many
hours while who-knows-what was going on behind
closed doors...
Bill
Rich Wilson wrote:
> During my time as an AFTRA officer I watched this
> process move forward gradually. But lately the unions have
> been mum about progress, if any, toward merger. There are
> big obstacles here because the pension plans are structured
> very differently, along with some significant differences
> in some of the jurisidicitons (e.g., a staff radio news
> editor in AFTRA has litle in common with a freelance film
> extra in SAG -- among many other examples). So it is
> understandable that *these* unions would find unification
> difficult, after their totally separate evolutions.
Rich,
The other complication has been the matter of membership procedures....
it's all too easy to buy an AFTRA card, but you've still got to do the
Taft-Hartley stuff and ean a SAG card. I've seen some progess on that
side.... new AFTRA members can get an active or a provisional card.
That, at least to me, suggests that the two performer unions are still
preparing for the eventuality of a merger.
Gosh, doesn't it sometimes seem like some artists would prefer to go
the way of Yugolavia?
My vote is for unification.... SAG/AGTRA; WGA east & west.
Bill
--
THE ACTING STUDIO
http://gvtg.com/theactingstudio
Disgusted
>The truth is the WGA/west board of directors voted
>14-4 to have separate negotiations is in large part due to the fact that they
> felt the WGA/east misrepresented
>the contract (namely by only including a "con"
>statement in the ballot packet and no "pro" statements)
>even though their own council approved it.
And how much money did the WGAw spend (using WGAw
Topos
Okay, I specifically didn't want to get into a lot of he said/she said debate
over this matter (I already admitted that I'm not voting) and most people
(especially Genia) seem to have understood the drift of my post.
But MKWord had some objections to things in my post (some of which I admit
weren't clear), so here we go.
I wrote:
> As you mention, WGAe will have little bargaining
power--seems to me they're probably being left out to pasture. I can't
imagine them winning concessions unless the west votes down the contract.<
MKWord replied:
>Your logic seems ... illogical.
>
>How in the world could the east win concessions
>if the west votes down their contract?
>
>They are now separate contracts. Doesn't matter
>what the west does, vote yay or nay, the east has
>negotiate their own.
>
My final response:
If the west votes down the contract, perhaps negotiations can again be made by
both guilds together.
I realize you don't think this will happen, and I don't either, but my main
point (which I provided the OPEC example for) was that if the West agrees to a
contract without significant residuals from cable, etc., there is no way in
hell the East will win those concessions in their negotiations. I know we are
in agreement here.
I said:
>>What if the west votes down the contract? I can
>>only hope that the Guild unifies around that
>>decision -
MKWord:
>Why? The west already voted "yes" by 57%.
>In what sense does unification necessitate
>a "no" vote on the contract. Remember,
>the two guilds are separate guilds. There
>is no unity and there never really was any.
>
My response:
Please don't cut up my sentences. I admit this is badly worded. I meant that
I hope the WGAw unifies around *the decision they make in the new vote, no
matter which way it goes*. I'm not arguing against the contract. The rest of
my paragraph went on to explain that a WGAw split against itself would be
unfortunate.
I wrote:
>>I wouldn't presume to comment on this contract,
>>but it looks like many people won't be happy.
MKWord replied:
>57% who voted for the contract.
My response: Okay, let's not quibble. I see the fact that 43% of the WGAw
(whom you argue is the guild that is really affected by this contract and has
any power to change it) members who voted voted against it, along with 80-some
percent of the WGAe, as a sign that many people are not going to be happy with
the results. I realize that there are plenty of people who didn't vote in the
WGAw. I will not presume to comment on their thoughts.
Perhaps we should agree to disagree on this one.
I wrote:
>>Perhaps a new contract could be hammered out
>>in the eight months before the current one runs out,
Mk Word:
>It will.
My response:
I meant (as the rest of the sentence suggests) that if the contract is voted
down, negotiations could be made, and there is a possibility a better contract
could result. My point was, though, that for this to happen, the writers
would have to be united and willing to sacrifice.
Finally, I said:
>but for concessions to be made, the writers
> would truly have to negotiate from a position of strength, which means
united and willing to sacrifice if necessary.
MKWord:
>The position of strength comes from the vast
>majority of television writers in Los Angeles.
>You seem to completely miss that point.
>
My response:
No, I realize this completely.
MKWord:
>Sacrifice may or may not get us concessions.
>It certainly didn't get us much in 1988.
My response:
No argument there. Let me reiterate. I am not arguing against the contract or
for a strike (or for the contract, or against a strike).
I merely offered some comments on negotiations and the splits within the
writing community.
I realize that this is an important issue to all writers, and I stand by my
recommendation that Guild members read all the arguments, think it through
carefully, and be sure to vote. Surely we agree on this.
Eric
p.s. Perhaps, if people wish to continue the conversation about the contract,
the issue of favored nation (I believe it is called) could be broached? Maybe
if the writers were alligned with other guilds, they could have more leverage
in negotiations. If anyone has some thoughts about this, I'd love to hear them.
Mkword
Disgusted writes:
>Do you plan to address the expenditure of WGAw
>funds for the pro-ratification mailings or are you
>going to conveniently ignore this issue?
Now you're just being silly.
The WGA/west made both "pro" and "con"
statements available to members. In the ballot packet there were far more
"con" statements than there were "pro."
Personally, I think it is a good use of money
to give the members both sides of the issue.
>>3) This decision by the WGA/west is not an
>>attempt to "invalidate" the vote. It is a move
>>to separate the destinies of the two separate
>>guilds.
>
>They should have made their move to "invalidate"
>the WGAe's vote before they issued the WGAe
>ballots.
Again, it's not an issue of whether or not the east
voted against the contract. It is about how the
east misrepresented the contract to its members.
If you read Dan Petrie's remarks you will see that
is very clear in the board's decision.
The west may very well vote down the contract
next time around. But at least it will have been
a fair ballot.
>>The contentious history between the two
>>different guilds is littered with antagonism
>>and accusation. Several proposals by the
>>west to merge the two unions have been
>>rebuffed by the east. To the point where
>>the east refused to even have a non-binding
>>referendum on the issue.
>>
>>Clearly, the east is not particularly interested
>>in unity.
>
>Have you considered shilling for Iran or Iraq?
Do you have a point? I'm interested if you
have an argument or a difference of an opinion.
But if you are simply going to toss insults ...
>>4) The decision to negotiate separately was
>>approved by a 14-4 vote by the Board of
>>Directors. That means that several board
>>members who were *against* the contract
>>found the actions of the WGA/east to be
>>unprinicpled and unfair. (refusing to include
>>a "pro" statement and refusing the West's request
>>for an observer to be present during the East count.)
>
>I'd be curious to know who was present to observe
>the count here, delayed as it was for so many
>hours while who-knows-what was going on behind
>closed doors...
You sound very suspicious, yet you only make veiled
accusations. Exactly what are you accusing the Board
of Directors of doing?
I recommend you contact the Guild and voice your concerns. As it stands, the
vote was reported on in
the trades and there were four votes against the split.
If there was any mysterious goings I'm sure we'll
hear about it from the dissenters.
Disgusted
>>Do you plan to address the expenditure of WGAw
>>funds for the pro-ratification mailings or are you
>>going to conveniently ignore this issue?
>
>Now you're just being silly.
Maybe you're just the victim of poor mail service.
I received a mailing through the postal service
from Brian Walton inviting me to phone him so he
could explain why the ratification was so
important. I have to assume the other 8,000 or so
members received a similar document, without
counting the ads which I understand were plastered
across the trades. Now, if my considering the use
of WGAw funds (for printing, paper, postage,
publication costs, manpower, etc.) a clear abuse
of authority is silly, than I am just being silly.
If, on the other hand, this is the use by a paid
employee of the WGAw, of WGAw funds to influence
members to vote in a manner that may further his
own interests, than I would call this a
disgraceful act on the part of the WGAw employee
and a clear conflict of interest.
So why don't you tell us how I'm being silly?
Mkword
Disgusted writes:
>Maybe you're just the victim of poor mail service.
>I received a mailing through the postal service
>from Brian Walton inviting me to phone him so he
>could explain why the ratification was so
>important. I have to assume the other 8,000 or so
>members received a similar document, without
>counting the ads which I understand were plastered
>across the trades. Now, if my considering the use
>of WGAw funds (for printing, paper, postage,
>publication costs, manpower, etc.) a clear abuse
>of authority is silly, than I am just being silly.
>If, on the other hand, this is the use by a paid
>employee of the WGAw, of WGAw funds to >influence members to vote in a manner
that may >further his own interests, than I would call this a
>disgraceful act on the part of the WGAw employee
>and a clear conflict of interest.
>So why don't you tell us how I'm being silly?
I will.
You are being silly on many counts.
1) I have no idea who paid for the numerous
mailings by Brian Walton. Nor do I know who
paid for the numerous mailings made on the part
of the people who were against the contract.
My mail service was quite fine, thank you.
Up until the deadline I received a lot of mail
from guild members who wished to present
their opinions about the elections and the contract.
I assume that some of it was paid for by the Guild
and some of it by individuals. There was nothing
to indicate that the WGA was pushing one opinion.
I was deluged with letters from both sides.
2) If a union negotiates a contract that it feels
is beneficial to its members ... why wouldn't
that union urge its members to ratify it? As long
as the union is willing air the views of those against
the contract, I have no problem with a union
promoting what it has worked hard to negotiate.
I simply don't see an abuse of power when the
ballot packet included more "con" statements than
"pro" statements.
And what of the WGA officers and nominees behind
the "con" statements? Certainly it can be argued
that they too are using WGA funds to influence
members to vote in a manner that may further their
own interests.
If you truly believe that Brian Walton is guilty of an impropriety, then I
think you need to bring that up
with the WGA board. You should present your
evidence and allow Mr. Walton to respond.
**_sender_unknown_**
>1) I have no idea who paid for the numerous
>mailings by Brian Walton.
They were paid for by the WGAw, an entirely
inappropriate source of funding.
> Nor do I know who
>paid for the numerous mailings made on the part
>of the people who were against the contract.
>My mail service was quite fine, thank you.
>Up until the deadline I received a lot of mail
>from guild members who wished to present
>their opinions about the elections and the contract.
Members are one thing. Staffers serving at the
pleasure of the board are another thing entirely.
I wish you could understand that simple concept.
>
>I assume that some of it was paid for by the Guild
>and some of it by individuals. There was nothing
>to indicate that the WGA was pushing one opinion.
>I was deluged with letters from both sides.
Mostly from members, who are entitled to lobby for
their beliefs.
>
>2) If a union negotiates a contract that it feels
>is beneficial to its members ... why wouldn't
>that union urge its members to ratify it? As long
>as the union is willing air the views of those against
>the contract, I have no problem with a union
>promoting what it has worked hard to negotiate.
>
>I simply don't see an abuse of power when the
>ballot packet included more "con" statements than
>"pro" statements.
You persist in arguing over pointless issues.
Nobody's talking about the ballot packet, nor the
flyers distributed by members pushing their
agenda. Again, we are talking about staffers,
serving at the pleasure of the board, using WGAw
funds to cover their own asses.
>And what of the WGA officers and nominees behind
>the "con" statements? Certainly it can be argued
>that they too are using WGA funds to influence
>members to vote in a manner that may further their
>own interests.
You don't know what you're talking about. Maybe
you'd better take a closer look at the costs and
requirements involved running for office in the
Guild.
>If you truly believe that Brian Walton is guilty of an impropriety, then I
> think you need to bring that up
>with the WGA board. You should present your
>evidence and allow Mr. Walton to respond.
I'm sure others with much deeper pockets and much
longer knives than I possess are already looking
into this matter...
Mark Evanier
On 3 Oct 1997 19:27:14 GMT, wood...@aol.com (Wood1459) posted:
>How would a strike affect a new writer trying to break in? Would it be the
> kiss of death?
ME: Well, when the WGA is on strike, the producers sometimes try to
get new writers to fill in, which is sometimes called "scabbing."
>If a strike does happen, will all writers stop working? If they did work, would
> it be the same as crossing a picking line for the UAW?
ME: If a strike does happen -- and I doubt one will -- then all the
writers stop working, yes. A WGA member who does work runs the risk
of being brought up on charges by the Guild, disciplined, fined or
expelled. A non-WGA member who works during a strike may be denied
membership in the Guild.
In 1981, when the WGA struck, I (of course) and two other writers
walked off a TV show we were then writing. The producer hired three
aspiring writers to replace us and promised them (a) the same money we
were getting and (b) absolute secrecy. Both these promises proved to
be false. The money he paid them was actually about 15% of what we
had been getting and, when the WGA asked the producer who had written
the scab scripts, he turned over their names to prove that HE had not
written them.
The three writers were banned from future membership in the WGA. One
of them later wrote a letter of apology, paid a small fine and was
allowed to join. I don't know about the other two, though I doubt
they have ever done any work that would allow them to join.
And, by the way, when the strike ended and we returned to work, our
first job was to rewrite the work of the three scabs, which was
completely unsatisfactory. Some of their stuff had actually been
taped, and it was all thrown away.
>If a strike is obvious, will the prodcos buy up a bunch of scripts in case it's
> a long strike?
ME: Possibly. But it's not that easy to do, especially in these days
when networks buy shows in short blocks -- six episodes, eight
episodes, etc.. In the last few WGA strikes, there has really been
very little production done on stockpiled scripts.
I doubt we are looking at a WGA strike in our immediate future but, if
we are, the aspiring writer is pretty much in the same boat as the WGA
writer -- our careers go "on hold" until the strike is over.
---------------------------
Mark Evanier - 363 S. Fairfax Ave., #303 - Los Angeles, CA 90036
Mkword
Someone writes:
>You persist in arguing over pointless issues.
I'm only interested in talking about the contract
vote and the ramifications of such. What are
*you* interested in arguing? It still is incredibly
unclear. Your accusations seem deliberately obtuse.
>Nobody's talking about the ballot packet, nor the
>flyers distributed by members pushing their
>agenda. Again, we are talking about staffers,
>serving at the pleasure of the board, using WGAw
>funds to cover their own asses.
"We"? I only hear one voice making accusations
toward Brian Walton.
So what does this "covering their own ass" actually
entail? What laws or bylaws or rules have been
broken. If you accuse, make a case.
>You don't know what you're talking about.
No. I don't know what *you're* talking about.
>Maybe you'd better take a closer look at the costs
>and requirements involved running for office in the
>Guild.
Maybe you should explain what you mean by all
this and state your accusation with clarity.
>>If you truly believe that Brian Walton is guilty
>>of an impropriety, then I think you need to bring >>that up with the WGA
board. You should present
>>your evidence and allow Mr. Walton to respond.
>I'm sure others with much deeper pockets and much
>longer knives than I possess are already looking
>into this matter...
Then why are you making these anonymous
accusations over the internet?
Besides, it doesn't cost anyone any money to
write a an open letter to the WGA outlining
what you believe to be an impropriety on the
part of a WGA staffer. Here, I'll send you
the envelope and stamp.
PS: interesting to note you've submerged
even deeper into anonymity. No longer
wish to be known as "Disgusted?"
Mkword
Rich Wilson writes:
> AFTRA-SAG merger fever has been very high
>for the past year or so, and one of the biggest >arguments is the ongoing
merger-mania among
>media conglomerates. Their bargaining power is so >huge now that many
performers feel they need
>more juice -- by joining forces entirely -- just to
>retain the status quo, much less gain more ground.
Well, the WGA/west has proposed a merger
with the WGA/east for years and the east has
repeatedly rejected it.
The media companies may now be bigger
conglomerates, but the essential players
and buyers remain the same. I don't see
how Paramount sans Viacom will negotiate
any differently than the present-day Paramount.
The studios and networks have *always* been
difficult to negotiate with. They are business
people looking at the bottom line.
> But are they missing anything? I wonder if we >witnessing the breakdown of
bargaining power of
>all these craft unions, as they turn away from unity
> -- and negotiating power -- at what may turn out to
>be a crucial moment.
I don't think the WGA/west turned away from unity.
I think the WGA/east created the need for separate
contracts.
Plus, as you've read in my other posts, I don't think
a split with the WGA/east will decrease the
negotiating power of writers. The power base is
here in the west where the vast majority of
professional film and TV writers work.
Disgusted
Sorry. Forgot to sign in last time...
I've never seen anyone fight so hard not to get
the point or to obfuscate it. My argument is
about hypocrisy and corruption, not the merits of
the MBA.
If the votes of the members in the East weren't
going to count, they shouldn't have been issued
ballots. Before the fact, not after.
Since you refuse to see the simplicity of the
issues re: mailings (i.e., private mailings vs.
official Guild mailings) why don't we just take
the issue of the private mailings off the table
and focus solely on those which came from the
WGAw?
I'll post the actual costs members must pay for
having their arguments printed in the ballot
packet as soon as I've dug through the piles and
found the info. I can assure you it isn't free
for members, as it is for executive employees...
Mkword
Disgusted writes:
>Sorry. Forgot to sign in last time...
Really? : )
>I've never seen anyone fight so hard not to get
>the point or to obfuscate it.
Maybe you're sinply not making it clear enough.
What has Brian Walton done? Sent out mailings
in support of the contract and billed the expense to
the guild? And he's not supposed to because ...
Come on. If you're going to make accusations, make
them. Exactly what rule or bylaw has been broken?
>My argument is about hypocrisy and corruption,
>not the merits of the MBA.
Okay. Where is the corruption? What is the
hypocrisy?
>If the votes of the members in the East weren't
>going to count, they shouldn't have been issued
>ballots. Before the fact, not after.
The votes did count. The contract was voted
down.
You keep missing the point. The WGA/west
decided that level of deception on the part of
the WGA/east council created an unfair process.
One could make a strong case that it was the east
that invalidated the vote.
>Since you refuse to see the simplicity of the
>issues re: mailings (i.e., private mailings vs.
>official Guild mailings) why don't we just take
>the issue of the private mailings off the table
>and focus solely on those which came from the
>WGAw?
Fine. But I think you owe it to the newsgroup
and Brian Walton to make clear exactly what
you are accusing him of doing.
>I'll post the actual costs members must pay for
>having their arguments printed in the ballot
>packet as soon as I've dug through the piles and
>found the info. I can assure you it isn't free
>for members, as it is for executive employees...
That was my next question.
How much money are we talking about?
Copies and stamps for how many active members?
But since we've put aside the issue of Mr. Walton
and now are only talking about the notices the
WGA/west sent out ... what's the beef??????
Would you rather have the the Guild send no
statements, pro or con?
Again, my mail box was filled with both pro
and con statements for a few days leading up
to the vote and I was very happy for it. It allowed
me the opportunity to look into both sides of the
issue. It helped me make an informed decision.
Not just about the contract, but about the people
for and against it who were running for office.
In the ballot packet, there was roughly twice
as many con statements as there were pro.
I think this was money well spent ...
