# Writers Guild of America goes on strike (5/2/23) tentative deal (9/25/23) Now accepted (10/9/23) **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Tags:** ai\ **Created:** [May 2, 2023, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448 "2023-05-02T04:36:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2023, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448/341 "2023-09-20T02:30:06Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > What I’m actually seeing throughout this thread is mostly the uncritical view that everything that unions do is always just and right. …this isn’t a thread about unions. Its a thread about the Writers Guild of America going on strike. Unions are tangentially related. But if all you are seeing throughout this thread is “mostly the uncritical view that everything that unions do is always just and right”, then you are missing a heck-of-alot-of-posts that are largely on topic. > [@wolfpup](#): > > The balanced reality looks more like the following. > > Employers are concerned with producing a profitable product on time and on budget. The simple way to say this is that employers place a high value on **efficiency**. > > Unions, by their very nature, are concerned only with worker benefits. These goals are often important and noble and may touch on everything from compensation to workplace safety. But they can also run directly counter to the employer’s quest for efficiency. This isn’t a balanced view of _this dispute_. Because you can’t look at what the studios have put on the table and what the WGA have presented and come to the conclusion that the studios are “valuing efficiency.” > [@wolfpup](#): > > The best outcomes are generally achieved when employer and union power are fairly well balanced. The studios need to come to the table and begin negotiating in good faith before we even get to this point. If this thread is looking “one-sided” to you, it isn’t because people hold “uncritical view that everything that unions do is always just and right.” Its because one side has fronted up to the negotiations and the other side isn’t. One side honoured the agreement not to talk to the media, and the other side leaked like a sieve. And “best outcomes” is a relative thing here. The best outcome for the audience would be for the studios to give the writers everything that they want. Because the studios want to turn themselves into “content factories”. Let the algorithm decide what people want to watch. This isn’t just me being “pro-union” and all. They are on the record as _saying_ this. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Unions with too much power have indeed been responsible for plant closures that may otherwise have remained open, with production moving to cheaper locations, sometimes overseas, with the consequent loss of all jobs involved. I think you are wrong here. But this isn’t the right thread to debate you. I’ve made my point (about the UAW, if that is what you are talking about here) over in the other thread. But the idea that _any_ union has “too much power”, when both corporations and the government have put significant effort into crushing the unions, is quite laughable. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2023, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448/342 "2023-09-20T03:04:36Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > This isn’t a balanced view of _this dispute_. > > Because you can’t look at what the studios have put on the table and what the WGA have presented and come to the conclusion that the studios are “valuing efficiency.” No, the same factors always prevail. The studios want to produce the largest number of profitable films at the least cost, and all the participants want to maximize their own personal gains. The dynamics are always the same everywhere. The prevalence of mini-rooms, CGI, and digital production in the film industry is comparable to the introduction of automation in manufacturing. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > The studios need to come to the table and begin negotiating in good faith before we even get to this point. If this thread is looking “one-sided” to you, it isn’t because people hold “uncritical view that everything that unions do is always just and right.” Its because one side has fronted up to the negotiations and the other side isn’t. I acknowledge this point. I’ve said at least twice now that I’m coming around to stronger support for the WGA side of this conflict than I had originally, which I might add no one has ever acknowledged, and instead I’m being cast as some sort of clueless union-busting plutocrat. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > But the idea that _any_ union has “too much power”, when both corporations and the government have put significant effort into crushing the unions, is quite laughable. The power of unions varies tremendously across different cultural and legal regimes around the world, from dysfunctionally weak to domineering monsters. It’s not laughable to workers who become unemployed when plants shut down and move production elsewhere. I doubt that they find it funny at all. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2023, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448/343 "2023-09-20T03:28:43Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The studios want to produce the largest number of profitable films at the least cost, …no. This isn’t what the studios want. Not at all. What gives you this impression? Where are you getting this from? > [@wolfpup](#): > > and all the participants want to maximize their own personal gains. The dynamics are always the same everywhere. No they aren’t the same. This isn’t correct. And I’ve just gone to great lengths to explain it. > [@wolfpup](#): > > The prevalence of mini-rooms, CGI, and digital production in the film industry is comparable to the introduction of automation in manufacturing. No. No it isn’t. Not at all. Not even one bit. What on earth are you talking about? > [@wolfpup](#): > > instead I’m being cast as some sort of clueless union-busting plutocrat. I haven’t cast you that way at all. I’ve done no more than address the words that you have said here. All of my responses to you are on topic and, if I’m disagreeing with you, a direct rebuttal to anything you’ve said. > [@wolfpup](#): > > The power of unions varies tremendously across different cultural and legal regimes around the world, from dysfunctionally weak to domineering monsters. And I stand by everything I said. Even the examples of unions you used in that other thread don’t rise to the point of “domineering monsters.” But if you want to debate unions, then fine. I’ll see you in the union thread. > [@wolfpup](#): > > It’s not laughable to workers who become unemployed when plants shut down and move production elsewhere. I doubt that they find it funny at all. Perhaps stop putting all the blame on the unions for firing workers, shutting down plants, and moving production elsewhere. Those are _company_ decisions. Not _union_ ones. But again: the union thread is :: points :: right over there. And I would ask you to stop misrepresenting my point. I don’t think it’s laughable when people lose their jobs. I think the idea that unions yield “too much power”, especially in the United States of today, is laughable. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2023, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448/344 "2023-09-20T04:31:55Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The balanced reality looks more like the following. > > Employers are concerned with producing a profitable product on time and on budget. The simple way to say this is that employers place a high value on **efficiency**. > > Unions, by their very nature, are concerned only with worker benefits. Wow, that’s your idea of “balanced”?! Obviously, an actual balanced presentation would read more like the following: Employers, by their very nature, are concerned only with company profits. Unions, by their very nature, are concerned only with worker benefits. We could also do a long-form version with a similar improvement in the balance: Employers are concerned with producing a profitable product on time and on budget. The simple way to say this is that employers place a high value on **efficiency**. Unions are concerned with maintaining a stable prosperous workplace with good jobs for their members. The simple way to say this is that unions place a high value on fair treatment. But your attempt to combine the sympathetic presentation of the employer’s goals with the skeptical presentation of the union’s goals is poisoning the rhetorical well right from the get-go. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2023, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448/345 "2023-09-20T04:46:05Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > But your attempt to combine the sympathetic presentation of the employer’s goals with the skeptical presentation of the union’s goals is poisoning the rhetorical well right from the get-go. No, that’s just the way you choose to interpret it. The point is about the basic pragmatism of the employer’s goal. If employers had all the power, production would be maximally efficient, although workers’ conditions would often be horrible. If unions had all the power, production would either cease or would all be in China. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2023, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448/346 "2023-09-20T04:48:29Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Employers are concerned with producing a profitable product on time and on budget. The simple way to say this is that employers place a high value on **efficiency**. > > Unions are concerned with maintaining a stable prosperous workplace with good jobs for their members. The simple way to say this is that unions place a high value on fair treatment. …and the thing is, I don’t even think _this_ is accurate. I’m not sure if calling the AMPTP the employer is correct. They are the industries “collective bargaining representative”, and nothing that they have put on the table shows they are concerned with producing a profitable product on time and budget, with a high value on efficiency. And the way the studios “employ” people are more akin to a contractor relationship than anything else. And what the studios actually want is to maximize value for the shareholders. That can mean everything from having unprofitable movies (see Hollywood accounting) to allowing a strike to go on for months without negotiating or resolution, which is hardly efficient at all. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2023, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448/347 "2023-09-20T04:58:15Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The point is about the basic pragmatism of the employer’s goal. Looks pretty obvious that the point is about spinning the employer’s goal as “pragmatic”, a positive implication, while simultaneously spinning the union’s goal as self-interested, a negative implication. An actual balanced presentation of the entities’ competing goals would look much more like one of the versions I suggested. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2023, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448/348 "2023-09-20T04:58:35Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > What gives you this impression? Where are you getting this from? > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > No they aren’t the same. This isn’t correct. And I’ve just gone to great lengths to explain it. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > What on earth are you talking about? I suspect that we’re probably talking past each other in some way, but I’m talking about basic employer-employee dynamics that are just the same in these WGA negotiations as anywhere else, namely about money and job security, and the specific key issues are mainly those that I already mentioned. To wit: > Viewership-based residuals, artificial intelligence and minimum staffing for writers rooms are some of the issues that the Writers Guild of America wanted to tackle that went nowhere with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers … One of the other central issues at stake in the negotiations is the proliferation of so-called “mini rooms” that feature a handful of writers breaking stories before a formal series order, which is not always a guarantee. > [Writers Strike: The Issues Dividing the WGA and Hollywood Studios – The Hollywood Reporter](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/writers-strike-issues-dividing-wga-hollywood-studios-1235477715/) Also from the same link above: > … “The studios are more focused on greed than keeping people working,” observed one writer-producer when reading the proposals. Some things never change. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > > [@wolfpup](#): > > > > instead I’m being cast as some sort of clueless union-busting plutocrat. > > I haven’t cast you that way at all. You haven’t, but some have, while refusing to acknowledge my sympathies for the writers and implying that my support of unions, where it’s deserved, is a lie. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2023, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448/349 "2023-09-20T05:12:40Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > but I’m talking about basic employer-employee dynamics that are just the same in these WGA negotiations as anywhere else, …we disagree on what "basic employer-employee dynamics"are. And even if we agreed, those dynamics are not at play here in this dispute. > [@wolfpup](#): > > namely about money and job security, Nope. You talked about “the studios want to produce the largest number of profitable films at the least cost.” The studios don’t want “profitable films.” Not on the books, at least. > [@CNN](#): > > One oft-cited example is the 1997 hit “Men In Black,” starring Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith. The movie grossed nearly $600 million on a budget of just $90 million. It was such a box-office winner, the movie spawned three sequels. > > And yet Sony Pictures, the studio behind it, claims the film has _never_ broken even. > > The movie’s screenwriter, Ed Solomon, has spoken out about the accounting shenanigans that make that possible. > > “The studios ARE losing money, just as they say,” he said recently in a deeply [sarcastic tweet](https://twitter.com/ed_solomon/status/1679788010106232835). “My recent Men in Black profit statement proves that the film, though having generated over $595 million in revenue, has actually _cost_ Sony over $598 million. SO close, too: off by just .02%/yr.” > > Sony, Solomon says, is artificially keeping the movie in the red to avoid big payouts. [https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/19/business/nightcap-hollywood-accounting-strike/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/19/business/nightcap-hollywood-accounting-strike/index.html) If they wanted to produce the largest number of profitable films at the least cost, then they would stop releasing blockbusters like Indiana Jones and Mission Impossible and instead follow the Blumhouse model. [https://www.reddit.com/r/LightsCameraPodcast/comments/axzexq/just\_how\_profitable\_blumhouse\_movies\_are/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LightsCameraPodcast/comments/axzexq/just_how_profitable_blumhouse_movies_are/) But they aren’t doing that. The big studios are showing zero signs of switching things up. No, the studios don’t want to produce the largest number of profitable films at the least cost. That isn’t their motivation here. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Some things never change. What do you think is wrong with that statement? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2023, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448/350 "2023-09-20T05:26:57Z")
OK, you’re really obfuscating things here. You’re showing us that the studios are engaging in extremely “creative” accounting tactics to maximize their retained earnings and minimize their revenue-sharing obligations. That’s despicable, and it only reinforces my basic proposition that the studios are out to make as much money as possible on every film. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > > [@wolfpup](#): > > > > Some things never change. > > What do you think is wrong with that statement? Nothing. Greed is an eternal human drive. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2023, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448/351 "2023-09-20T06:45:45Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Yeah, they do. As well as a number of other things that I’ve outlined extensively in other posts. No they don’t. And the other things that you may be advocating for are irrelevant seeing as I’m dealing with the one specific demand for minimum workers. Setting minimum numbers of workers cannot guarantee against overwork issues, however putting in place protections specifically targeting them, can and does. On this demand at least the union is cart-before-the-horse. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2023, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448/352 "2023-09-20T07:20:55Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > But they aren’t doing that. The big studios are showing zero signs of switching things up. No, the studios don’t want to produce the largest number of profitable films at the least cost. That isn’t their motivation here. They want to make a profit. That is the ultimate purpose of pretty much any business. They’ll do it by making a product that they can make a profit off (creative accounting accepted). If they are to survive they ultimately need bums on seats, eyeballs on screens and advertisers on board. They’ll also (the successful ones at least) need to adapt to changing times and technologies. If that means having a temporary battle with unions in order to put in place new ways of working with less reliance on expensive writers then that is what they will do. Whenever new technologies and working practices have impacted industry and potentially reduced worker numbers and offered greater profitability you have a battle between the companies seeking to introduce them and unions seeking to moderate them. The technology wins in the end. That will happen here as well. I don’t blame the union for trying to preserve jobs and nor do I blame the studios for trying preserve their future profitability but there will only be one winner. What I do think is that the writers union is not in a massively strong position in the long term. People aren’t feeling any great deprivation from their action and won’t do for quite some time. The studios know this and feel they can ride it out for longer and ultimately force greater concessions. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2023, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448/353 "2023-09-20T09:22:07Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > OK, you’re really obfuscating things here. …nope. The _studios_ are obfuscating things here. One of the key demands from both the WGA and SAG are that the studios open their books. That they aren’t opening the books, that the writers and the actors don’t even know if the TV show that they wrote for or starred in has made a profit, is important here. > [@wolfpup](#): > > That’s despicable, and it only reinforces my basic proposition that the studios are out to make as much money as possible on every film. _Shareholder value_ is more significant than movie profits. That’s what is driving the decisions at the bigger studios, not profit. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > No they don’t. Of _course_ they do. 6 episodes, 6 scripts, 6 writers. If you cut the writing room in half, then each writer has to do twice as much work in the same amount of time. Because they aren’t stretching the deadlines. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > And the other things that you may be advocating for are irrelevant seeing as I’m dealing with the one specific demand for minimum workers. They aren’t irrelevant. Because without minimums, the pipeline has _gone_. Without minimums, the creative process of breaking a story gets harder. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Setting minimum numbers of workers cannot guarantee against overwork issues, however putting in place protections specifically targeting them, can and does. Setting minimum number of writers will accomplish exactly what the WGA have said it would. The system has worked for decades. Since the pandemic, when the studios decided to slash the writers rooms, the pathway for new writers to learn their craft has gone, opportunities for marginalized storytellers are drying up. This isn’t guesswork. I’m not speculating. This is actually happening. And if you want a cite? Go read through my posts up thread. It’s getting tiring to have to repeat myself. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > They want to make a profit. That is the ultimate purpose of pretty much any business. I mean: that’s the ultimate goal of _my_ business. But its wrong to claim that this is the “ultimate purpose of pretty much any business.” Almost the entire tech-bro sector is full of start-ups whose goal it is to get millions of venture capital funding, grow the business to the point where they can sell it off, then profit off the proceeds of that sale. The product they are selling really _isn’t_ the product. The _business_ is the product. Doordash? Not profitable. Uber has only ever been proftiable when they fiddle the books. Blue Apron? Not profitable. Lyft? Not profitable. Peleton? Not profitable. Pinterest? Not profitable. Twitter? Not profitable. The list could go on and on and on and on. The studios are in the same position that many media companies were in a few years ago. Gobbled up by vulture capitalists who look to extract value from the business without concern for sustainability, and when the value is gone, sell what’s left for spare parts. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > If they are to survive they ultimately need bums on seats, eyeballs on screens and advertisers on board. What makes you think the goal is to “want to survive?” Because there is nothing in the game plan that suggests this is what they want. If they want bums on seats, eyeballs on screens, and advertisers on board, then they would be moving to settle the writers strike as soon as possible. Meanwhile, on Netflix, the TV Show Suits, that ended production in 2019, just finished its seventh week at the top of the Netflix streaming charts. The new stuff doesn’t cut it. Suits is a show that had a traditional writer’s room that hit the minimums: first season, 12 episodes, 8 writers. The formula works. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > They’ll also (the successful ones at least) need to adapt to changing times and technologies. If that means having a temporary battle with unions in order to put in place new ways of working with less reliance on expensive writers then that is what they will do. Writers aren’t expensive. And they can save you hundreds of thousands of dollars. I posted an example of this up thread. And what is it do you think they could be replaced by? > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Whenever new technologies and working practices have impacted industry and potentially reduced worker numbers and offered greater profitability, you have a battle between the companies seeking to introduce them and unions seeking to moderate them. Which new technologies are you talking about? What working practices do you think should be changed? Can you be more specific and avoid the generalities? How will they generate more profits? Because this looks like hand-waving too me. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > The technology wins in the end. That will happen here as well. What technology? The studios haven’t put anything on the table. And there isn’t anything on the market that can come even close to replicating what even the worst writer in the WGA can do. Can you be more specific about what you think is going to “win in the end?” > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I don’t blame the union for trying to preserve jobs and nor do I blame the studios for trying preserve their future profitability but there will only be one winner. If the studios defeat the unions here, the only winners will be the shareholders who cash out before the studios start to go bankrupt. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > What I do think is that the writers union is not in a massively strong position in the long term. People aren’t feeling any great deprivation from their action and won’t do for quite some time. Which is why a television show that ended production in 2019 is what everyone is watching on Netflix right now. People want to see new stuff. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > The studios know this and feel they can ride it out for longer and ultimately force greater concessions. Do you remember this joke from the Hitchhikers Guide? > **["I'm British, I know how to queue", The Hitchhiker](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTartgZ6n9Q%2F)** > > Arthur enters the office and sees a huge line of other aliens waiting to be served...he shows what Brits know how to do. “I’m British, I know how to queue.” Do you know the thing about writers in Hollywood? They know how to _wait_. They know how to survive off Big Boy’s and ramen. They know how to wait between writing jobs. “Riding it out” won’t gain the studios any concessions. If they want concessions, they will have to do it the old-fashioned way: at the negotiating table. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2023, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448/354 "2023-09-20T10:02:36Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Of _course_ they do. 6 episodes, 6 scripts, 6 writers. If you cut the writing room in half, then each writer has to do twice as much work in the same amount of time. Because they aren’t stretching the deadlines. You are coming at this from completely the wrong direction. The only thing that guarantees against overwork, unpaid overtime etc. Is an agreement that limits those very things. You can mandate that a six episode series needs six writers (which is clearly material-dependant, but lets leave that to one side for a moment) but that in no way guarantees that those six writers will not be exploited and overworked. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Since the pandemic, when the studios decided to slash the writers rooms, the pathway for new writers to learn their craft has gone, opportunities for marginalized storytellers are drying up. This isn’t guesswork. I’m not speculating. This is actually happening. And if you want a cite? Go read through my posts up thread. It’s getting tiring to have to repeat myself. This absolutely does sound like someone saying that the writers are in some way owed a living as a writer. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Meanwhile, on Netflix, the TV Show Suits, that ended production in 2019, just finished its seventh week at the top of the Netflix streaming charts. The new stuff doesn’t cut it. Suits is a show that had a traditional writer’s room that hit the minimums: first season, 12 episodes, 8 writers. The formula works. So your point is that people are happy to watch old stuff? That’s great. There is so much of it out there that the lack of new stuff is not a problem and won’t be for ages. And you merely _assume_ that the number of writers involved in Suits has something to do with its popularity. I don’t buy it. I look back at some of the great TV produced and see no correlation between a mandated minimum numbers of writers and how good or popular something is. (and when it comes to comedy, less is often better) You say Suits “hit” the minimum. Was that minimum imposed on them? or did they have a free choice on how many writers to employ? I note that one of the towering achievements of TV “I Claudius” (12, one hour episodes) had a sum total of one (1) writer. Would that have been better with a larger team? > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Which is why a television show that ended production in 2019 is what everyone is watching on Netflix right now. People want to see new stuff. How does that conclusion follow? They still have access to new stuff that has never been seen before, why is that not top of the list? > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > “Riding it out” won’t gain the studios any concessions. If they want concessions, they will have to do it the old-fashioned way: at the negotiating table. Both sides will seek (and gain) concessions. The willingness of both sides to take a hard line will force that negotiation and compromise. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2023, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448/355 "2023-09-20T10:20:11Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Which new technologies are you talking about? What working practices do you think should be changed? Can you be more specific and avoid the generalities? Hard to avoid generalities when you are making a general point. The technology specific for the writers strike is the use of AI, plus any changes to working practices that come from that. Many which remain unforeseen. If the use of AI ends up improving profitability for the company and gaining it a competitive advantage then it will win out regardless of any temporary concessions gained from this round of action. It would be merely delaying the inevitable. That has been true of any technological advancement. And don’t ignore the “if” in my comment there, it is very important. I suspect AI will play a greater part in creative processes in the coming decades but quite how and where is up for a debate in another channel. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2023, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448/356 "2023-09-20T11:52:50Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > You are coming at this from completely the wrong direction. The only thing that guarantees against overwork, unpaid overtime etc. Is an agreement that limits those very things. …who is asking for a guarantee? You asked the question why the WGA are asking for minimum staffing. I’ve explained to you why. Workload is just one of many different reasons why. And the numbers speak for themselves. 6 episodes? 6 writers. If you halve the amount of writers then they’ve got to do twice as much work in the same amount of time. That isn’t “coming at it the wrong way.” Thats answering your question. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > You can mandate that a six episode series needs six writers (which is clearly material-dependant, but lets leave that to one side for a moment) but that in no way guarantees that those six writers will not be exploited and overworked. Its a good thing that the WGA isn’t _only_ asking for minimums then. Its like…they are asking for a whole lot of things. Including such _basic_ things like “pay your writers on time.” > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > This absolutely does sound like someone saying that the writers are in some way owed a living as a writer. It doesn’t sound like that at all. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > So your point is that people are happy to watch old stuff? That’s great. There is so much of it out there that the lack of new stuff is not a problem and won’t be for ages. The point is that there is nothing new thats good enough to watch. So they are watching old stuff. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > And you merely _assume_ that the number of writers involved in Suits has something to do with its popularity. > I don’t buy it. I look back at some of the great TV produced and see no correlation between a mandated minimum numbers of writers and how good or popular something is. (and when it comes to comedy, less is often better) Which show did you look back at that had mandated minimum number of writers exactly? Can you name them? Because I need to test a theory. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > You say Suits “hit” the minimum. Was that minimum imposed on them? or did they have a free choice on how many writers to employ? That was a question you should have asked me _before_ you claimed to have looked back at shows with “mandated minimums”. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I note that one of the towering achievements of TV “I Claudius” (12, one hour episodes) had a sum total of one (1) writer. Would that have been better with a larger team? How long did it take for Pulman to adapt Grave’s novel? Because if you aren’t working to deadline, then that changes the equation. We all _know_ that the way shows are produced in America are different to how they are produced everywhere else. > [@Variety](#): > > Holdsworth also points out that because of the WGGB’s agreements with ITV and the BBC – Britain’s largest public service broadcasters – writers still have “quite good” minimum terms. And unlike their U.S. colleagues, they often get to hold onto the copyright of their work. > > … > > By way of comparison, she says one particular episode of classic British detective show “Midsomer Murders” that she penned is often repeated on TV, yielding a significant enough residual check to enable her to redecorate her kitchen. “Those days are disappearing now, so we need to make sure that writing is a sustainable career,” she says. “Because also the knock-on effect of people only being able to live from script to script [is] a devastating effect on diversity and inclusion.” > **[As WGA and Hollywood Employers Meet at Bargaining Table, Are British Writers...](https://variety.com/2023/biz/global/wga-contract-strike-uk-writers-guild-great-britain-1235566743/)** > > British writers are keenly watching as the WGA's talks with major studios accelerate but the chance of U.K. scribes taking labor action is remote. They even still get decent residual checks in the UK! Would you support WGA writers getting some of the same benefits as they do in the UK? Or would you prefer writers in the UK stopped getting residuals? If you wanted more recent examples of single-writer-shows in the US I could have given you examples if you asked me. JMS (who wrote the bulk of the episodes) with Babylon 5 and Taylor Sheridan with Yellowstone. And, well, many people argue that Yellowstone needs a writer’s room, but that’s by-the-by. It is likely the WGA will allow waivers for showrunners to be able to run their own show without a room. However, that would probably be dependent on the studios agreeing that the showrunner has to be a writer. Because a producer-showrunner with a single staff writer is uncharted territory, and prime for exploitation. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > They still have access to new stuff that has never been seen before, why is that not top of the list? Correction: they want to watch _good_ new stuff. The shows that the streamers have been producing lately are the product of the new ways of working that the studios have introduced. Smaller rooms, if they have a room at all. Leaving it to the showrunner to write the bulk of the scripts. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Both sides will seek (and gain) concessions. You claimed that “riding it out” would get the studio concessions. But the studios _won’t_ get concessions until they come back to the negotiating table and start to finally bargain in good faith. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > The technology specific for the writers strike is the use of AI We’ve had this discussion before. There is no AI out there that’s ready to replace or even supplement the writers in the writers room. This isn’t going to happen. It isn’t on the table. If they ever get to the point where AI could maybe handle writing a bit more than a page of dialogue without forgetting whether or not the dog is dead, then perhaps we could table this again. But at the moment? And for the foreseeable future? There really isn’t anything to discuss. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2023, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448/357 "2023-09-20T13:30:48Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …who is asking for a guarantee? Fine, if the writers union want a solution that isn’t going to address the real problem then they are going about it the right way. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > You asked the question why the WGA are asking for minimum staffing. I’ve explained to you why. Workload is just one of many different reasons why. And the numbers speak for themselves. 6 episodes? 6 writers. If you halve the amount of writers then they’ve got to do twice as much work in the same amount of time. That isn’t “coming at it the wrong way.” Thats answering your question. And I don’t think you are going to accept why that is an arse-backwards approach. Nor do I accept the simplistic production-line mentality that you apply to a creative process. Doubling the number of people involved does not necessarily translate into a halving of the time taken or an assurance of the quality of the output. Nor is it a guard against overwork or other exploitation of the employees. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Which show did you look back at that had mandated minimum number of writers exactly? I’m not aware of _any_ shows that were operating under a union-mandated minimum number of writers. Yet still good quality shows get produced. If there are a list of them that were created under those rules then do tell. I’d be interested to know and compare. I’m certainly aware of very good shows that were _not_ created under the minimum numbers. You even admit as much later in thread. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > That was a question you should have asked me _before_ you claimed to have looked back at shows with “mandated minimums”. I am asking now. Feel free to answer or not. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > How long did it take for Pulman to adapt Grave’s novel? Because if you aren’t working to deadline, then that changes the equation. We all _know_ that the way shows are produced in America are different to how they are produced everywhere else. So you’d be fine with it only being one writer if the studio lengthened the deadline and ensured that the writer was not being overworked? Sounds like you are tacitly admitting that the key issue is the working conditions rather than the number of writers. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > If you wanted more recent examples of single-writer-shows in the US I could have given you examples if you asked me. JMS (who wrote the bulk of the episodes) with Babylon 5 and Taylor Sheridan with Yellowstone. And, well, many people argue that Yellowstone needs a writer’s room, but that’s by-the-by I have no doubt that some shows may benefit from more writers, just as some would likely benefit from less. There should be freedom to do both. I just think the decision on that is better taken by the studio in consultation with the writers on a case-by-case basis rather than having it mandated by a union. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2023, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448/358 "2023-09-20T15:12:04Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Fine, if the writers union want a solution that isn’t going to address the real problem then they are going about it the right way. …but they _are_ addressing the very real problems facing the industry. That what minimums will do. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > And I don’t think you are going to accept why that is an arse-backwards approach. It isn’t an arse-backward approach. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Nor do I accept the simplistic production-line mentality that you apply to a creative process. It isn’t a “simplistic production-line mentality.” And its a different take on the creative process. When it comes to creativity there isn’t a single way to do things. The magic of the writers room is that you’ve got a room full of people who get to bounce ideas off each other. SPOILERS FOR THE LEFTOVERS ON THE LINK Here’s a link to Vulture, where they discuss what happened in the writers room. > [@Vulture](#): > > As January turned to February, Lindelof staffed up his writers’ room. He took a casual approach, inviting candidates for a conversation and seeing where it went. In the end, each writer brought his or her own particular set of skills: Lindelof was both the boss and the chief thrower of bombs, crazy ideas that Somerville calls “Damon grenades.” (“Laurie shoots herself!”) Perrotta was the critic with veto power. (“No other place!”) Tom Spezialy, an executive producer involved in all phases of production, was chief of staff and quality-control officer. Early each season, Reza Aslan, the religion scholar, came in to talk about Isaac’s sacrifice or Aboriginal songs. (He insisted Kevin was a shaman and had to die.) Somerville, also a respected fiction writer, was the conciliator, the literary bridge between Lindelof and Perrotta. > **[How to End a TV Show: An Exclusive Look at the Making of The Leftovers Finale](https://www.vulture.com/2017/06/leftovers-finale-behind-the-scenes-exclusive.html)** > > The hardest part of making The Leftovers was figuring out how to finish it. An exclusive look at the making of the last episode. This isn’t a “production line.” Its a group of highly creative people working together to create something new and unique. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Doubling the number of people involved does not necessarily translate into a halving of the time taken or an assurance of the quality of the output. Nor is it a guard against overwork or other exploitation of the employees. It isn’t “doubling the amount of people.” Its the normal amount of people needed to firstly break a story, write the scripts, then deliver the scripts on deadline. What the studios are wanting to do (and in many cases, have already done) is to _reduce_ the number of writers. I used “half” as an example. If six people work a normal amount of hours to deliver six scripts by October 1st, then three people will have to work _more_ hours to deliver six scripts on the same date. Thats just simple maths. The same amount of work has to be done. Its just there are less people to do it. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I’m not aware of _any_ shows that were operating under a union-mandated minimum number of writers. Yet still good quality shows get produced. And they didn’t need too until the studios started to slash and burn the writers rooms. Which is why minimums are on the table. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > If there are a list of them that were created under those rules then do tell. I’d be interested to know and compare. You claimed you looked back at shows that had mandatory minimums. I don’t have to list anything. Its your claim. What shows did you look back on that had mandatory minimums? Or did you not actually “look back?” > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I am asking now. Feel free to answer or not. I’ve answered already. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > So you’d be fine with it only being one writer if the studio lengthened the deadline and ensured that the writer was not being overworked? If the studios want to lengthen the deadlines, then they can bring that to the table when they return to the negotiations. But they aren’t going to do that. Because as I’ve already cited, the typical burn-rate per week on a show can be anywhere between 2 and 10 million dollars per week. A typical production can have anywhere between 2 and 500 staff. And the showrunner, who is also the head writer, is in charge of all of this. You stretch a deadline by a week and it could cost the studios maybe 10 million dollars. Delay it for two weeks? Double that. It’s significantly cheaper (by orders of magnitude) just to hire the extra writers. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Sounds like you are tacitly admitting that the key issue is the working conditions rather than the number of writers. It’s more the case that you don’t understand how television productions work, the enormous scale at which they operate, and the fact that the writers are in a much better position to understand what they need in order to be able to do the job than either you or I. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I just think the decision on that is better taken by the studio in consultation with the writers on a case-by-case basis rather than having it mandated by a union. The studios went ahead and started slashing rooms _without_ consulting writers or the guild. The strike put a halt to that. If the studios want to go case-by-case, then they can bring it up during the negotiations, where it should have been bought up in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2023, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448/359 "2023-09-20T16:22:13Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > This isn’t a “production line.” Its a group of highly creative people working together to create something new and unique. You are the one who claimed > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > If you halve the amount of writers then they’ve got to do twice as much work in the same amount of time You are the one who is treating it as a simple work-rate calculation when it will never be that simple. Indeed there are plenty of instances where a process is not helped or sped-up by simply having more people working on it. and you also say > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > If six people work a normal amount of hours to deliver six scripts by October 1st, then three people will have to work _more_ hours to deliver six scripts on the same date. > > Thats just simple maths. The same amount of work has to be done. Its just there are less people to do it. If that isn’t treating the process like a production line then I don’t know what is. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > You claimed you looked back at shows that had mandatory minimums No, I didn’t. I said. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I look back at some of the great TV produced and see no correlation between a mandated minimum numbers of writers and how good or popular something is The point being that, to the best of my knowledge, it was never a thing and yet great TV was produced. If you think that having those minimums imposed on great TV of the past would have made them better then go for it. Make that case. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > You stretch a deadline by a week and it could cost the studios maybe 10 million dollars. Delay it for two weeks? Double that. > > It’s significantly cheaper (by orders of magnitude) just to hire the extra writers. So if the cost-benefits analysis is that stark, the studios will hire the extra resources anyway. You don’t need to mandate it from the off. And if they can actually do it with fewer writers then they won’t. I fail to see the benefit of mandating minimum numbers of writers. If you do manadate minimums rather than putting in place working practice guidelines then you will still come up against deadline pushes and there is nothing to prevent those writers being exploited/overworked etc. However, if you focus instead on putting in place the working guidelines then in the face of a deadline push the studio will hire the numbers they need in order to avoid the budget increase and also to remain within the scope of the working practice protections. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2023, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448/360 "2023-09-20T20:12:10Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > > [@wolfpup](#): > > > > That’s despicable, and it only reinforces my basic proposition that the studios are out to make as much money as possible on every film. > > _Shareholder value_ is more significant than movie profits. That’s what is driving the decisions at the bigger studios, not profit. What do you imagine creates shareholder value? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/writers-guild-of-america-goes-on-strike-5-2-23-tentative-deal-9-25-23-now-accepted-10-9-23/983448.md?page=19)