Writers Guild of America goes on strike (5/2/23) tentative deal (9/25/23) Now accepted (10/9/23)

[Banquet_Bear]

@Novelty_Bobble

why did you do that? What possible relevance does that have to your simplistic interpretation of the creative process?

…I’ve answered that question already.

It was a response to your disingenuous framing of a sentence I wrote that you took completely out of context.

And you’ve done it again. Explaining how long it typically takes to write a script is not “a simplistic interpretation of the creative process.” There is no reasonable way you could read what I’ve written in this thread and come to that conclusion.

@Novelty_Bobble

I looked back thinking that there was never a time when such requirements were in place

To help you here: I never claimed there were such requirements in place.

@Novelty_Bobble

You were the one making the tenous implication that old series of “Suits” are somehow superior to current shows and that it has something to do with having a number of writers above what you consider to be a necessary minumum.

I never used the word “superior.”

@Novelty_Bobble

So you trust the company not to exploit the workers through workplace practices and feel no need to have rules in place against it, but in the same breath think that the company cannot be trusted to not exploit the workers through undermanning and therefore have to put rules in place to guard against it?

Okay. Education time.

Who decides how many writers a show can have?

Its the studios. Who are represented in these negotiations by the AMPTP.

Once the number of writers have been allocated and the budgets set, who decides how many hours the writers work?

It’s the showrunner.

And where does the showrunner come from in the vast majority of TV shows?

From the writer’s room.

Are you starting to understand yet?

The showrunner runs the show. The head writer, who is being represented by the WGA, controls the workplace practices that you are asking the WGA to demand the AMPTP do something about. The studios don’t decide whether or not the writers go home on time at 6PM and don’t work on the weekends. The writer (nee showrunner) does.

The problem here is you don’t understand anything about the thing you are arguing about.

That isn’t intended as a personal criticism. But the strikes are about very specific things. There is a hierarchy, there is history, things get complicated. And you are making very general arguments about very specific things that you don’t understand. The reason why the WGA are asking for minimums have been explained to you over and over again. You are free to disagree. But at this point in the negotiations, the request makes absolute sense.

But to put it as simply as I can: the studios control the amount of writers that can get hired. But the writers (nee showrunner) generally control the day-to-day operations that happen during the production.

You are asking the WGA to negotiate with the studios to demand WGA membership do the job they are paid for.

@Novelty_Bobble

I’ve already given examples of those upthread.

If they are the ones that I’m thinking of, then that’s up to the writers to control, and wouldn’t be part of the negotiations. If you meant something else, then let me know.

@Novelty_Bobble

Because, as has been explained to you, only one of those approaches actually gives legal power to prevent exploitation.

But why not have mandatory minimums? We aren’t talking about just exploitation. What about all the other things that I’ve bought up?

@Novelty_Bobble

My simple point was that you cannot treat the productivity of a creative process as if it were a production line.

Strawman. That wasn’t what I was doing.

@Novelty_Bobble

With known rates of production, resource levels and simplistic output calculations.

Which is what you were doing.

You can rarely make such predictions for even any purely physical manufacturing process beyond the extremely simple. For someone who claims knowledge of the creative world I’m surprised you’d think that approach applies there.

You know that they’ve been doing this for decades, right? Ask any experienced showrunner “we are doing a sitcom, its 24 22-minute episodes, shooting starts in six months, you can start putting a room together next week, how many writers do you need” and they could give you an answer straight away. No hesitation. They live and breathe this stuff.

What makes you think this is so difficult? They are filming hundreds of shows every year. They do this all the time.

@Novelty_Bobble

Your introduction of ChatGPT is distracting and irrelevant to the point.

Your constant implications that I’m saying things that I’m not are distracting and irrelevant to this thread.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Banquet_Bear

And you’ve done it again. Explaining how long it typically takes to write a script is not “a simplistic interpretation of the creative process.” There is no reasonable way you could read what I’ve written in this thread and come to that conclusion.

I’m not getting into personal attacks, there is no benefit in doing so in this forum.

You did not simply explain how long it takes to write a script did you? You very specifically made claims on productivity and workload e.g.

@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

I say it is not as simple and linear as you assume. I say that because pretty much no process ever works like that, let alone one as complicated, unpredictable and variable-dependant as writing.

@Banquet_Bear

I never used the word “superior.”

Then what was the point of appealing to the number of writers used?

@Banquet_Bear

And you are making very general arguments about very specific things that you don’t understand

In the case of this specific demand (the only one I am interested in) the specifics don’t matter because the general principle is sound regardless.

The company chooses how many people to employ for the job to be completed
If the job can’t be completed then the company incurs costs, lost profits, delays, penalties etc.
In response to that the company can
a) exploit the workers it already has or
b) it can hire more resources.

The only thing that guards against a) is an agreement on protective working practices that carry legal power and I am all in favour of unions fighting for those and that is where the focus should be.
Mandating minimum staffing levels is a red herring. It is of course something that creates more jobs for union members and it is clear why that would be desired by the union but it has precisely zero practical benefit and may in fact be counter-productive. It could easily lead to less people being employed than could otherwise be the case, especially if it is prioritised over and above those working practice agreements I mentioned previously.

You have some familiarity with this one area of business and consequently think it is a special case, it isn’t. I’ve worked in pharma, electronics, legal, marketing, research, oil and gas and much more besides. Reviewing a vast and varied array of processes and practices, making them work more efficiently. One constant across those areas is that every single one thinks their own area of business is the one that is special and different and not amenable to some basic general principles.

That has never yet been the case.

I’ve nothing else to say to you that wouldn’t simply be repeating myself or running the risk of escalating to the personal so I’ll leave it there.

You now fully know what my thoughts are on the benefits (or not) of the writers demand for minimum staffing levels.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Novelty_Bobble

You very specifically made claims on productivity and workload e.g.

…no. It was an analogy.

If six writers that have to deliver six scripts can do that on deadline, then three writers would have to do twice as much work to deliver the very same scripts to hit the same deadlines.

I am explaining the concept to you by using very simple numbers in the simplest way possible.

@Novelty_Bobble

I say it is not as simple and linear as you assume.

It was an analogy.

@Novelty_Bobble

In the case of this specific demand (the only one I am interested in) the specifics don’t matter because the general principle is sound regardless.

The company chooses how many people to employ for the job to be completed
If the job can’t be completed then the company incurs costs, lost profits, delays, penalties etc.
In response to that the company can
a) exploit the workers it already has or
b) it can hire more resources.

The only thing that guards against a) is an agreement on protective working practices that carry legal power and I am all in favour of unions fighting for those and that is where the focus should be.
Mandating minimum staffing levels is a red herring. It is of course something that creates more jobs for union members and it is clear why that would be desired by the union but it has precisely zero practical benefit and may in fact be counter-productive. It could easily lead to less people being employed than could otherwise be the case, especially if it is prioritised over and above those working practice agreements I mentioned previously.

I mean: you are wrong.

There really isn’t anything more to say on the matter.

You are at the “just saying stuff” point now. Because you’ve completely ignored not only everything that I’ve said, but everything the writers have had to say, everything the WGA has had to say, you haven’t rebutted any of our points, you’ve just gone back to the talking points that you were using at the start of the discussion.

So concession accepted.

@Novelty_Bobble

You have some familiarity with this one area of business and consequently think it is a special case, it isn’t. I’ve worked in pharma, electronics, legal, marketing, research, oil and gas and much more besides. Reviewing a vast and varied array of processes and practices, making them work more efficiently. One constant across those areas is that every single one thinks their own area of business is the one that is special and different and not amenable to some basic general principles.

I’m sorry: are you attempting to pull rank now?

Are you under the impression that this is the only thing I know? That I also don’t have experience in a HUGE range of businesses and organizations, that I haven’t reviewed a vast and varied array of processes and practices, making them work more efficiently?

Because I have. Systems are my thing. Worfkow is my jam.

I’m not acting like “my own area of business is the one that is special and different and not amenable to some basic general principles.” Because as I explained up thread to @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness this isn’t my business.

The difference between me and you is I’ve done my research here. I’m not arguing from a position of ignorance. I back everything up with a cite. When I heard about the WGA proposals I looked them up. I read what the WGA had to say, then I looked up the AMPTP postion to see what they had to say. I dug deeper into both sides.

This isn’t a thread about “general business principles.” Its a thread about the Writers Guild of America going on strike.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Smapti

Yes, I would.

So you would force employers to create positions, even beyond what the task demands, in order to employ competent people who want that career?

I applaud you for being open enough to admit it but I find it a fascinating position.

I honestly don’t see how such an approach can possibly work or what mechanism you’d use to drive it.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Novelty_Bobble

I honestly don’t see how such an approach can possibly work or what mechanism you’d use to drive it.

Here, you and I are in agreement. The idea that anyone should be able to obtain employment in a position for which they’re qualified–if that’s actually what @Smapti is arguing–is obviously unworkable.

To take the most egregious example I can think of, I believe at least three of the main posters in this thread meet the qualifications to be president of the United States. This is a trait we share with, and I’m super lowballing it here, at least ten million other humans. I’ll lowball again and say at least 0.1% of us, or or 10,000 of us, would like the job. Should the government be required to let us make a living as president?

To take a less egregious example, how many competent actors are there? How many would be competent at taking the role of the romantic lead in the next blockbuster movie? How many should studios be forced to hire for that role?

To take a much more common example, if I’m qualified to be the host of a restaurant, and I apply at a small restaurant that already has a host, what should the restaurant be required to do? Where will the money for any additional wages come from?

Absolute command economies provide almost nobody with the chance to make a living at what they want to do. Free markets don’t force employers to hire. I cannot possibly see how such a system could work.

This extreme position is obviously not what WGA is talking about, and Maher’s idiotic strawman should be dismissed out of hand.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

This extreme position is obviously not what WGA is talking about, and Maher’s idiotic strawman should be dismissed out of hand.

Well what he said was

“What I find objectionable about the philosophy of the strike [is] it seems to be, they have really morphed a long way from 2007’s strike, where they kind of believe that you’re owed a living as a writer—and you’re not,

Which is very much an off-the-cuff paraphrase rather than a direct accusation of an extreme position. And as you’ll have seen from my previous comments I think that the focus on mandated minimum staffing levels is at least some evidence for that.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Novelty_Bobble

And as you’ll have seen from my previous comments I think that the focus on mandated minimum staffing levels is at least some evidence for that.

“Mandated minimum staffing levels” isn’t an absolute position, though: it’s a contingent position. It’s not “You must always have a minimum number of writers”. It’s, “If you want any of us working for you, you must have a minimum number of writers.”

That contingency makes it completely opposite from what Maher said, so it’s an idiotic strawman.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Back on track:

Hollywood CEOs join negotiations with striking writers

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

“Mandated minimum staffing levels” isn’t an absolute position, though: it’s a contingent position. It’s not “You must always have a minimum number of writers”. It’s, “If you want any of us working for you, you must have a minimum number of writers.”

I’m not clear on what the difference is, can you explain?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

You must give me ten dollars.
If you want this sandwich I made, you must give me ten dollars.

You must invite my wife to your wedding.
If you want me to come to your wedding, you must invite my wife to your wedding.

You must hire the whole band.
If you want any of us to perform, you must hire the whole band.

You must have minimum staffing levels.
If you want any of us to write for you, you must have minimum staffing levels.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

You must give me ten dollars.
If you want this sandwich I made, you must give me ten dollars.

You must invite my wife to your wedding.
If you want me to come to your wedding, you must invite my wife to your wedding.

You must hire the whole band.
If you want me to perform, you must hire the whole band.

I’m no clearer on what you are trying to say.

For a given project, if the union demands were met, is the employer free to decide how many writers are needed or are they not?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Novelty_Bobble

if the union demands were met, is the employer free to decide how many writers are needed or are they not?

That’s bizarrely phrased. They’re free to meet the union demands or not. If they choose to meet the union demands, they’ve chosen to satisfy the union’s request for minimum staffing levels.

A similarly bizarre question would be, “For a given sandwich, if the restaurant’s price of $10 is met, is the customer free to decide how much to pay or are they not?”

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

That’s bizarrely phrased. They’re free to meet the union demands or not

I’m surprised this is causing a problem.

One of the demands of the union during this strike is for minimum staffing levels.

If that demand was accepted, what would that mean in practical terms?

The employer would no longer be free to choose how many writers to employ for a given project. Correct? That would be a freedom they were conceding.

Or am I completely misunderstanding what they are asking for?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Novelty_Bobble

If that demand was accepted, what would that mean in practical terms?

The employer would no longer be free to choose how many writers to employ for a given project. Correct? That would be freedom they were conceding.

As I understand it, yes–just like with any contract, you agree to do things. The freedom is in making the initial agreement or not.

Maher’s silliness–they think they’re owed a living–suggests they’re not trying to reach a contractual agreement, but they’re trying to force something on an unwilling party. That’s nonsense. WGA is offering services in exchange for what they want, not forcing anything on anyone.

If a sandwich shop offers me a sandwich for $10, and Bill Maher said that they were acting like they were owed my $10, I’d think him just as much an idiot.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

As I understand it, yes–just like with any contract, you agree to do things. The freedom is in making the initial agreement or not.

Ok, we got there. We both have the same understanding of what is being asked for and yes, both parties are of course free to make that initial agreement or not and would be bound by those conditions were they to do so.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Maher’s silliness–they think they’re owed a living–suggests they’re not trying to reach a contractual agreement, but they’re trying to force something on an unwilling party.

I interpret it differently. Nothing to do with “force”. To me, Maher is more suggesting that the nature of the demands being made (i.e. there must be more jobs for writers) bely that philosophy of “being owed a living as a writer” that he referred to.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Novelty_Bobble

Maher is more suggesting that the nature of the demands being made (i.e. there must be more jobs for writers) bely that philosophy of “being owed a living as a writer” that he referred to.

Yes–and it’s idiotic to describe contractual negotiations in those terms.

Edit: also, I’m not sure you mean “bely” there.

[Digger11]

@Smapti

I think you’ll find that a company’s idea of how many people they “need” is almost universally at odds with what their customers and employees know that they need, and that applies to writers just as much as it does to fast food companies who think they can replace cashiers and grill crew with a touchscreen attached to a card reader and a robot that flips patties.

On the flip side, I find that the Walmart I typically shop at has significantly more registers open now that they’ve expanded their self-checkouts.
Very few of them have company cashiers manning them, but the customers don’t have to wait so long in line. That much is a refreshing change from the “good old days” before automation became so prevalent on the front lines of retail.

[Smapti]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

The idea that anyone should be able to obtain employment in a position for which they’re qualified–if that’s actually what @Smapti is arguing–is obviously unworkable.

What I’m arguing is that all jobs should pay a living wage and that companies should prioritize the wellbeing of labor above that of CEOs and shareholders, and that therefore they should defer to labor when it comes to establishing ideal staffing levels.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Digger11

On the flip side, I find that the Walmart I typically shop at has significantly more registers open now that they’ve expanded their self-checkouts.
Very few of them have company cashiers manning them, but the customers don’t have to wait so long in line. That much is a refreshing change from the “good old days” before automation became so prevalent on the front lines of retail.

…so how would you imagine this could apply to the writers room on a typical American TV show?

[BigT]

@Novelty_Bobble

@BigT

It is at odds because you said that the employer should get to decide how many workers it needs. You acknowledge that this means the employer will try to minimize the number of employees. Given those two conditions, the inevitable outcome is that employers will overwork their employees. ⁢

No, it is not inevitable because that overwork simply does not always happen where other safeguards are in place. (rather than union-mandated minimum levels). ⁢

I agree. But who are the ones who got those regulations passed? It sure wasn’t the employers, who of course wanted to hire as few people as possible to do as much work as possible. It was labor, who originally used unions to force it, and then later got the law changed.

My objection to your post was your claim that employers, not labor, should be the ones to decide how many workers they need. But if it takes regulation to keep them from overworking said workers, then clearly the employers can’t be trusted to decide on their own.

It’s just how the capitalist system works. The employers/buyers are incentivized to get maximum value for minimal cost. With workers, that means getting as much work out of someone for the least amount of money paid.

Sure, any particular individual may actually have some sort of morals. But the system will further reward those who don’t. So the system as a whole incentivizes overwork. Only labor pushing back counters this.