[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
Elenfair, I’ve appreciated your contribution to this topic and, as someone employed in the film industry in a non-union capacity, I’m behind the WGA 100%.
But I was wondering what you thought of this that appeared in the L.A. Times yesterday…
[/QUOTE]
Registration required. Could you give us a summary.
[QUOTE=Jodi]
Because one side stopped work and the other didn’t. One side is preventing others from working, and the other isn’t.
[/QUOTE]
What leverage do the writers have other than refusing to work? Suppose your boss knew you’d never quit your job no matter what. What incentive would he have to give you a raise? Heck, what incentive would he have to pay you at all?
Innocent victims, no matter how you look at it.
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
What leverage do the writers have other than refusing to work? Suppose your boss knew you’d never quit your job no matter what. What incentive would he have to give you a raise? Heck, what incentive would he have to pay you at all?
[/QUOTE]
This assumes that the writers deserve a raise. I’m not convinced that they do.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
This assumes that the writers deserve a raise. I’m not convinced that they do.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, yes, we know. Because TV sucks so bad.
Lower pay usually means that the best workers go elsewhere. Paying the writers peanuts pretty much guarantees all you’ll get is crap.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Registration required. Could you give us a summary.
[/QUOTE]
Weird. It comes up straightaway on my end.
The author is WGA member John Ridley (here’s his IMDB listing). Here are a couple key paragraphs:
Essentially, Ridley has gone “financial core”.
And apparently, by going FC, he’s grist for the industry rumor mill right now, so he decided to write the OpEd in question. He closes his piece with:
[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
Weird. It comes up straightaway on my end.
The author is WGA member John Ridley (here’s his IMDB listing). Here are a couple key paragraphs:Essentially, Ridley has gone “financial core”.And apparently, by going FC, he’s grist for the industry rumor mill right now, so he decided to write the OpEd in question. He closes his piece with:
[/QUOTE]
Whoa, cool. Kudos to Ridley. The more I hear about the WGA, the more thuggish they sound. I wonder if they feel any compassion at all for the people they’re putting out of work who have nothing to do with this fight.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Whoa, cool. Kudos to Ridley. The more I hear about the WGA, the more thuggish they sound. I wonder if they feel any compassion at all for the people they’re putting out of work who have nothing to do with this fight.
[/QUOTE]
Probably not. In fact, I expect they chortle maniacally about it whenever the thought crosses their minds. I hear that the current official WGA handshake is to offer a 50-dollar bill to a laid-off TV worker, then yank it back out of reach while screaming “Psyche!”
Fortunately, those laid-off TV workers still have the warm and nurturing Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers on their side, who will no doubt take care of their families’ every need after they are laid off by the heartless Writers’ Guild. Rumor has it that producers are setting up cots in their spare rooms even as we speak.
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
What leverage do the writers have other than refusing to work? Suppose your boss knew you’d never quit your job no matter what. What incentive would he have to give you a raise? Heck, what incentive would he have to pay you at all?
[/QUOTE]
Why on earth would I never quit my job no matter what? Why would they?
[QUOTE=Jodi]
(a) Sure. (b) Because one side stopped work and the other didn’t. One side is preventing others from working, and the other isn’t.
[/QUOTE]
Which side? A contract is an agreement between two parties, not one. There is no contract; the two sides do not agree on how their business should be arranged. Why is it automatically the fault of Side A, and not Side B? The studios are equally responsible by not giving the writers what they want just as the writers are responsible by asking for something the studios do not want to give.
If this was a disagreement between two big corporations - say, Microsoft and RIM were going to create a new portable computing device that would create jobs, but couldn’t agree on the details of the contract - which side would you “blame”? Probably neither; you’d accept that sometimes people disagree on negotiations. How is this affair any different?
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Which side? A contract is an agreement between two parties, not one. There is no contract; the two sides do not agree on how their business should be arranged. Why is it automatically the fault of Side A, and not Side B? The studios are equally responsible by not giving the writers what they want just as the writers are responsible by asking for something the studios do not want to give.
[/quote]
Then the writers go write for someone else and the studios hire writers willing to work for the terms they are offering. If Side A and Side B don’t agree then both walk away and conduct their business with people willing to meet their terms.
I would blame whichever of the two sides insisted that the other side could only work with it; the side preventing others who might offer the same service from doing so; the side insisting that everyone offering the service must work for it (in the case of a corporation) or belong to it (in the case of a union).
Generally speaking, when people disagree on negotiations, the remedy is to break off negotiations and take your business elsewhere, not to try to hold the other party hostage until it meets your demands. This affair is very different because you’re not dealing with a simple contract negotiation driven by market forces – you give me what I want and I give you what you want, and if we can’t agree, I sell my product elsewhere and you buy your product elsewhere. You’re dealing with a walkout coupled with serious pressure forbidding anyone else from offering the product in question. It’s not a negotiation; it’s a hold-up. (Literally: Production is being held up.) Whether it’s justified or not is another question, but it’s hardly the same thing as negotiating a straight-forward business contract in a free market.
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
What leverage do the writers have other than refusing to work?
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t that the exact same incentive all ununionized people have?
I don’t mind if people strike, but it bugs me when people strike while talking about how much talent and ability it takes to do their job. If you have to strike to get a fair wage, then I got news for you, your job doesn’t take much skill.
I don’t have a dog in this fight aside from being a loyal television viewer. But for what it’s worth, I’ll throw my two cents in. Take it as you will.
Elenfair, I have nothing but respect for the job you and countless others do. For all the hours of quality programming that I have enjoyed for little to no cost, thank you. It’s sad that many quality writers make $5k per year. On the other hand, many others make much, much more than that, and it’s hard to balance what’s “fair income” for a writer. The difficult part, for me, in determining fair compensation to writers and actors is that while their work may be quality, they essentially are doing what they enjoy. Sure, sometimes that means 18 hour days, but in the end, all writers and actors have a choice of what to do with their lives. No one forces an actor or writer to take the job; there are plenty of other high paying careers out there that require less work. Doing what you love doing is important, but if I were doing the same, I’d be happy making just enough to make ends meet.
I understand the point is to set a wage for most writers to be able to make ends meet. That’s great, and I’ll say right now that I agree in principle with the goals of the guild. Internet writing deserves to be paid just as much as screen writing does, and residuals are due. That said, there’s no sympathy from me for the writer who makes $5k a year. I agree with treis to a point… for true skill and ability, many writers do make enough to make writing their full time job. For those that don’t and end up with $5k per year, they have full time jobs. They take the job and know the risks of ending up making pennies. Again, no one forces them to, and if they stay in the industry, that’s up to them. Should they have actual talent, the road to success is earned through hard work and dedication. If that’s the chosen career path, accept the crappy start.
Though I agree with the goals of the guild, I do not agree with the strike, for several reasons. I disagree with striking in principle. I can’t say I can offer a better solution to the members of the guild, but I just can’t agree with a strike. I disagree with this strike, in particular, because of the residual effect it has on other, innocent victims.
As posted here, layoffs are coming. Should this strike continue much longer, layoffs will inevitably increase. The strike may be about the “middle class writer,” but many “middle class industry workers” are going to be affected. Whether your work can be done by anyone else is not a fight I want to pick, but the fact is, a LOT of work in showbiz IS done by folks who are a dime a dozen. Cameramen, boom operators, grips, makeup artists, gaffers, production assistants – you name it, a lot of folks are affected by this strike and will soon be out of work. When the strike is over, some may get their jobs back, some may not. The WGA is looking out for number one, and though it’s good to stand up to being treated unfairly, the effect will have consequences for many other folks who – like me – have no dog in this fight.
On a more superficial level, I’m pissed at the lack of new programming. I miss new episodes of my favorite shows. I won’t point the blame directly at the WGA, and though there’s an attitude of “why should they care what the public thinks?” here, that only emphasizes the WGA’s mission to protect their own interests. Their paychecks come from networks and studios. Who get money from advertisers. Who buy based on ratings. Which are decided by people like me. So, yeah, the WGA should take an interest in the general public.
That’s all I’m going to say on the subject. Again, I agree with the WGA in principle only – your cause is just, but your means are not. I don’t know of an appropriate alternative, so it’s safe to say that, at this point, I’m a little pissed at both sides.
Wait wait wait…
If people are getting pissed because their shows have gone missing, how is that bad for the WGA? Isn’t that good for them? Viewers are pissed because there are no new shows. (Or they don’t like the unscripted crap being put up in their place.) So ratings go down, so advertisers are going to pull out, and the networks feel the burn… back to the table they go?
So… yeah! I’m not seeing where the whole “ooo WGA, watch out or the public’s gonna turn their back on you!” vibe is coming from.
[QUOTE=Aioua]
Wait wait wait…
If people are getting pissed because their shows have gone missing, how is that bad for the WGA? Isn’t that good for them? Viewers are pissed because there are no new shows. (Or they don’t like the unscripted crap being put up in their place.) So ratings go down, so advertisers are going to pull out, and the networks feel the burn… back to the table they go?
So… yeah! I’m not seeing where the whole “ooo WGA, watch out or the public’s gonna turn their back on you!” vibe is coming from.
[/QUOTE]
Anecdotal experience only from casual conversation and the occasional talk radio show is that most people are looking at this as:
I won’t say that people’s opinion of the WGA as a group will affect the writers directly. All I’m saying is that this “why should we care what they think?” attitude should be re-thought, since “they” are essentially funding paychecks.
[QUOTE=Aioua]
Wait wait wait…
If people are getting pissed because their shows have gone missing, how is that bad for the WGA? Isn’t that good for them? Viewers are pissed because there are no new shows. (Or they don’t like the unscripted crap being put up in their place.) So ratings go down, so advertisers are going to pull out, and the networks feel the burn… back to the table they go?
So… yeah! I’m not seeing where the whole “ooo WGA, watch out or the public’s gonna turn their back on you!” vibe is coming from.
[/QUOTE]
The advertisers aren’t going to pull out. They have nowhere else to go.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The advertisers aren’t going to pull out. They have nowhere else to go.
[/QUOTE]
So advertisers will continue to funnel money into a medium that no one is watching?
I agree that most advertisers won’t completely pull out. But the price they negotiate for their 30 second spot will drop tremendously with any ratings decrease.
[QUOTE=atomicbadgerrace]
On a more superficial level, I’m pissed at the lack of new programming. I miss new episodes of my favorite shows. I won’t point the blame directly at the WGA, and though there’s an attitude of “why should they care what the public thinks?” here, that only emphasizes the WGA’s mission to protect their own interests.
[/QUOTE]
Are you for real?? You’re ascribing to the WGA as a whole an attitude based on the posts of one person in this thread, a person that not only is NOT a part of the WGA, but doesn’t even know anyone involved in the entertainment industry and has NO dogs in this fight?
I don’t speak for the WGA. I was just musing about why they shouldn’t care. IMHO and all that. I don’t know what they think about the public.
Geez! Get a grip.
[QUOTE=treis]
I don’t mind if people strike, but it bugs me when people strike while talking about how much talent and ability it takes to do their job. If you have to strike to get a fair wage, then I got news for you, your job doesn’t take much skill.
[/QUOTE]
If scriptwriting doesn’t take much skill, where are the scabs to take the writers’ jobs?