Actors, Writers And Directors on Strike??

[William A Chapman Jr]

reposted from thewritersbuilding, re: the WGA viewpoint

 

-----------

Some of us have been screwed for a while now, and not in the pleasant sense. The below is an email post from Micah Wright, posted on the WriterAction (WGA-only board). I requested and have his written permission to spread it like the plague. ~ Tina

 

(FYI, to set the scene, the tone of Micah?s intro is in response to another WA poster unhappy with our leadership).

 

Well this is ONE angry Horad that?s confused about your stance. The AMPTP clearly never intends to pay us one single cent for internet delivery. The music business model clearly indicates that internet delivery for most, if not all content is the future. What then were we supposed to do when faced with rollbacks and refusals to bargain in good faith? Pray? Or just swallow the bullshit they were trying to shove down our throats, and forget about not only what we?re making, but also what every person who ever follows us into this union will ever make?

 

People like you keep bitching about the DVD negotiating point, and yeah, you?re right: DVD was lost 20 years ago, but there?s no magic rule which says we can?t reopen that topic. More importantly, though, DVD didn?t take off for almost a decade after the ?88 strike? the Internet is here NOW, and it?s here FOREVER, and if we give in and allow them to pay us ZERO on Internet delivery, we can just kiss the idea of ever getting paid residuals goodbye forever.

 

It?s not self-righteousness which is driving this negotiation? it?s quite simply the greed of the AMPTP, which clearly sees this as the year in which they intend to break the WGA on the rack once and for all. But you don?t see that? you seem unable to get it through your head that the AMPTP doesn?t want to ever pay us anything. If you think these people are so reasonable and that they deal in good faith, then try talking to writers who work in Animation and Reality? THAT is the future that the AMPTP has in store for EVERY WRITER IN THE WGA. Because if they don?t have to pay residuals to the woman who wrote The Lion King, then why should they ever have to pay one to YOU? Or anyone else?

 

Oh, and before you give me some fu**ing sob story about the disastrous strike of 1988, let me bring you up to date with a more RECENT story: mine.

 

I came to this guild having had a ?successful? career writing Animation for $1400/week for five years. During that time, I wrote on several of Nickelodeon?s highest-rated shows. My writing partner wrote and directed 1/4 of the episodes of ?SpongeBob SquarePants? and I was responsible for 1/5 of the episodes of ?The Angry Beavers.? The current value that those shows have generated for Viacom? $12 Billion dollars. My writing partner topped out at $2100/week. In the year 2001, tired of not receiving residuals for my endlessly- repeating work (even though the actors and composers for my episodes do), I joined with 28 other writers and we signed our WGA cards.

 

So, Nickelodeon quickly filed suit against our petition for an election, and set about trying to ferret out who the ?ringleaders? were. In the meantime, they canceled the show that I had created 4 episodes into an order of 26. Then they fired the 3 writers who?d been working on my show. Then they fired 20 more of my fellow writers and shut down three more shows, kicking almost their entire primetime lineup for 2002 to the curb, and laying off 250 artists.

 

Then, once the WGA?s petition for election was tied up in court over our illegal firings, Nickelodeon called in the IATSE Local 839 ?Cartoonists Guild? ? a racket union which exists only the screw the WGA and its own members ? and they signed a deal which forever locks the WGA out of Nickelodeon, even though we were there first. Neato!

 

Then Nickelodeon?s brass decided ?out of thin fu**ing air? that myself and two other writers had been ?the ringleaders? of this organizing effort, so they called around to Warner Bros. Animation, the Cartoon Network, Disney Animation, and Fox Kids, effectively blacklisting the three of us out of animation permanently.

 

And why did Nickelodeon do this? Why were they so eager to decimate their own 2002 schedule, fire 24 writers, break multiple federal labor laws, sign a union deal, and to even bring back the fu**ing blacklist? They did all of that to prevent us from getting the same whopping $5 residual that the actors & composers of our shows get.

 

For five lousy fu**ing bucks, they destroyed three people?s careers and put 250 artists out of work and fu**ed up their own channel for a year.

 

Ahh, but my episodes run about 400 times a year worldwide, though, so obviously Sumner Redstone (Salary in 2001: $65 million dollars) and Tom Freston (2001 salary: $55 million) were right to do what they did? myself and those other 23 writers might have broken the bank, what with each of us going to cost them another TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS each! OH NO! That? that?s? FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS!

 

A YEAR!

 

So don?t come crying to those of us who have EXPERIENCED what the AMPTP plans for all of the rest of you, that people who are deciding to stand up to bully-boy tactics like that are the crazy bunch of ?horads? lustily marching ?throught? the streets searching for blood. The AMPTP are the barbarians sacking Rome in this scenario.

 

The AMPTP and their glittering-eyed weasel lawyers are a bunch of lying, blacklisting, law-breaking scumbags, and the fact that they haven?t budged off of ANY of their proposals in the last three months proves that what they have in store for EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU is exactly what they did to us at Nickelodeon, and what they can do any day of the week in daytime animation. Or reality.

 

Strike or no strike. That?s their plan: to winnow down your membership, to snip away at your MBA, to chew away at your health & pension plans until there?s just nothing left of the WGA. Why? Because they?ve had a good strong drink of how much money they make off of animation when they don?t have to cut the creators in for any of the cash, and now they want to extend that free ride to all of live action as well. THAT is why they have pushed for this strike at every step, with their insulting press releases, with their refusals to negotiate, etc. ? because they?re HOPING we go on strike, and that enough cowards and Quislings come crawling out of the woodwork after six weeks that they can force us to accept the same deal that Reality TV show writers have.

 

If you doubt me, go read their contract proposals again? there?s not ONE of them which isn?t an insult and a deal-breaking non-starter.

 

So can we PLEASE stop hearing about how it?s the current WGA management which is the fu**ing problem here? Because, frankly, that canard is getting a little stale.

 

Or perhaps you prefer presidents like the President of the Guild back in 2001 who just threw up her hands when we were fired and blacklisted out of our careers and said, and I quote, ?oh well, it was a good try??

 

 

I'm not tring to start a fight, but what if the dvd release or a movie ect fails and loses money? Is the WGA or SAG ect going to give money back.? I dout it. The writers get paid regardless if the production makes a profit, if it dosen't studios take the loss. The productions that make it big covers the ones that don't.

[Max Jacoby]

My understanding is that writers recieve 4 cents for every dvd sold and that they are asking for 8 cents in the new contract. The 4 cent residual was concieved back in 1985.

I really don't think studios are going to go bankrupt from giving up 8 cents of every dvd to the authors of the material, people without whom there would be no money to be made in the first place. Maybe some executives should try their hand at writing and see how much money their shows make.

[William A Chapman Jr]

What they could do is not pay out anything unless the movie makes a profit then give every one a percentage, if the movie tanks then every one shares in the loss as well.

[Paul Maibaum ASC]

The producers actually took this notion off the table in earlier negotiations.

[Alex Ellerman]

What they could do is not pay out anything unless the movie makes a profit then give every one a percentage, if the movie tanks then every one shares in the loss as well.

 

The screenplay was bought on its own merits. if someone else's fingerprints make the movie awful (like a guy in a suit with an MBA from Yale), then the writer shouldn't have to pay back money.

 

By your logic, the guy who designs cars for GM (and the workers) should give back all profits as they just suffered billions in losses. Does that make sense?

 

and lest we forget, no one in Hollywood wants net profits b/c studios show most movies as having lost money. that sinks the whole idea right there.

[William A Chapman Jr]

The screenplay was bought on its own merits. if someone else's fingerprints make the movie awful (like a guy in a suit with an MBA from Yale), then the writer shouldn't have to pay back money.

 

By your logic, the guy who designs cars for GM (and the workers) should give back all profits as they just suffered billions in losses. Does that make sense?

 

and lest we forget, no one in Hollywood wants net profits b/c studios show most movies as having lost money. that sinks the whole idea right there.

 

The writers were paid for their service when they wrote the script, screen play ect. Plus they already get royalities, What financial risk do they take in the DVD release, none. The Sudios and Distributors do. If they want more money from dvd sales then they should have to come up with some of the cost to produce the dvds. Equal risk for equal reward. That sounds fair.

[Alex Ellerman]

What you're arguing is anti-thetical to the system. the system is: the creator gets a salary and % of iterations. the studios want to limit as many iterations as possible.

 

You want them to pay back money if the movie is a failure.

 

Please cite me an example of a successful system that runs in this manner so that I may see its benefits.

 

I can cite you systems that work analogous to the aforementioned (music springs to mind, as do books).

 

 

(do you think dvd's are a big financial risk? i doubt it. it's pretty easy to gauge the audience and adjust. your point is better made on theatrical releases)

[David Mullen ASC]

As a co-author of a textbook ("Cinematography", Third Edition) I can tell you that I wasn't paid anything for writing it, I only get a share of the royalties. Getting royalties taken from the profit earned by your creative ideas/work is not unheard of in the world of writing (or songwriting). It ensures that if your creative idea generates an unexpectedly huge amount of revenue, you will be benefit from the success, not be cut-out.

[William A Chapman Jr]

As a co-author of a textbook ("Cinematography", Third Edition) I can tell you that I wasn't paid anything for writing it, I only get a share of the royalties. Getting royalties taken from the profit earned by your creative ideas/work is not unheard of in the world of writing (or songwriting). It ensures that if your creative idea generates an unexpectedly huge amount of revenue, you will be benefit from the success, not be cut-out.

 

Thank you David, Thats basicly the point I was making, you were not paid up front (the risk) and get royaties from the profits (reward) As far as I know screen-script writers are getting paid up front for their services (no risk) and want more royaties then they are already getting. If they want bigger royaties then they should assume more of the risk and not get paid up front, and then get royaties "if" it turns a profit.

[Hal Smith]

Have all of you who are criticizing writers for getting royalties lost your minds? Are you all so rich and powerful that you think than monstrosities like Viacom are the good guys in all this? Busting unions is what damn near caused a revolution in this country in the 1930's. FDR and the New Deal are what saved the nation from conflagration. It never fails to amaze me how people who are basically working class get conned into thinking that unions are a bad idea - and it's good for the "economy" if extremely rich people don't pay taxes. How's your health care? How's your job security? How are you being treated at work? Not good? Ever think that maybe a good union might just be what you need?

[David Mullen ASC]

Thank you David, Thats basicly the point I was making, you were not paid up front (the risk) and get royaties from the profits (reward) As far as I know screen-script writers are getting paid up front for their services (no risk) and want more royaties then they are already getting. If they want bigger royaties then they should assume more of the risk and not get paid up front, and then get royaties "if" it turns a profit.

 

It's not like it has to be either/or -- money up front but no profit participation, or no money up front but only profit participation.

 

Even the studios dangle profit participation deals as a way of paying less up front for big-name talent, so they aren't going to agree to an either/or situation any more than the writers would. Project by project, a studio may decide how to structure an offer that suits the movie's financing and budget better.

 

Your argument doesn't really make sense, that there can only be one way of paying a writer for their services. A studio very well may decide when a big writer or star actor asks for more money up front on a project to make a counteroffer of bigger profit participation instead because they don't want the film's budget to rise on paper.

 

As for the notion that writers don't share any risk when they write a movie, if they did by being profit participants only, then they'd be demanding more creative control over the project to protect their investment, and the studio execs, producers, and the directors may not want that. So to complain that the writers don't take a risk when they don't have the power to take that risk and manage that risk by controlling the production, is not very fair.

 

A mix of payment and residuals is not unreasonable for people who fundamentally contributed to the existence of a creative work that brings in money; the only real argument here is how much. Like I said, not even the producers would agree to tripling writers' salaries as way of getting rid of residuals.

 

It basically comes down to the fact that the studios want to keep as much profit to themselves and not share it with anyone if they don't have to, even if the moneymaking project wouldn't even exist without the creative work of the writer. It's not a question of fairness to them, it's simply standard operating procedure, don't give away any money that you can keep for yourself. And they will use their deep pockets to try and break the backs of the unions in order to keep more of that money.

 

The notion of a well-paid workforce that can support a middle-class lifestyle has become meaningless with globalization because nothing is "local" anymore. When an old factory had an owner that lived in the same town as his workers, there may have been a sense of the benefits of a contented workforce that could live a decent lifestyle and perhaps even buy your products, but now, it's all about pleasing shareholders and Wall Street (not that there wasn't that element in the past, but it's extreme now). The studios are owned by international corporations who really don't care if the film workers in Los Angeles, for example, work regularly and can keep up a decent standard of living. That's meaningless to them now. It's the WalMartization of corporate culture -- all that matters is to drive down expenses and drive up profits, no matter what the human cost on a local level. The fact that some people are workers and not owners is just their poor dumb luck.

 

Production costs are rising, yes, but the rates of most of the workers on a film are not rising at the same rate as overall costs; the money is being spent elsewhere. So it's hard to buy the notion that the only solution to rising costs is to reduce the costs (either in salaries or residuals) that film workers cause the studios.

[Saul Rodgar]

Have all of you who are criticizing writers for getting royalties lost your minds? Are you all so rich and powerful that you think than monstrosities like Viacom are the good guys in all this? Busting unions is what damn near caused a revolution in this country in the 1930's. FDR and the New Deal are what saved the nation from conflagration. It never fails to amaze me how people who are basically working class get conned into thinking that unions are a bad idea - and it's good for the "economy" if extremely rich people don't pay taxes. How's your health care? How's your job security? How are you being treated at work? Not good? Ever think that maybe a good union might just be what you need?

 

Indeed. Unfortunately, to a lot of people in this country, anything that sounds even remotely related to unions and health care and the like amounts to calls for communism in America. This is OBVIOUSLY not true. But it doesn't matter, because that just won't do to all-American working men and women, however poor, disenfranchised and unhealthy they get! They really hit it big when they figured it out how to con the working class into thinking that making the rich richer through policy and sinkning the ever-shrinking middle class to below poverty levels was what was needed to keep America great! And don't even get me started on foreign policy and "the war on terror." Got to thank Bush, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and the rest of them scuzzy neocons!

 

LET THE SLEEPY GIANT SLUMBER!

[David Mullen ASC]

All that said, I hope the WGA and the studios can reach a compromise, rather than take a "my way or the highway" attitude on either side.

[Arni Heimir]

I've always wondered why studios can't just use the pool of unproduced scripts in development hell during strikes? Seems to me that the writers are in a unfavorable bargaining position.

[David Mullen ASC]

They have stockpiled scripts, but there always seems to be a need for rewrites once shooting begins, which is the problem. But some movies & shows will try to go into production with these stockpiled scripts.

 

Also, even though SAG, DGA, and IATSE are not allowed to strike in sympathy because of their contracts with the producers, the Teamsters allow individual members to strike in sympathy with other unions, so IF a bunch of drivers stop working, then nothing will get done anyway.

[Tenolian Bell]

I also think the expectation and life style in LA are higher than they are in most other places.

 

When I first began to take trips to LA. I came with the mindset that the primary reason we made movies and television were for the love of it. Of course we want to make money, as much as possible, but the love of the craft was the major motivator.

 

As I got to know people who worked in Hollywood I quickly learned differently. Its about money. I would hear people frequently complain that they feel they weren't getting paid enough or that someone else is getting paid more than they are. Most of these people live very comfortable lives. Not rich but certainly making more than the average American.

 

So I began to ask around why are people in Hollywood so concerned with money. The general explanation I got was as you start working steadily you are pretty happy and satisfied. Especially if you've been struggling for awhile you are really happy to have a steady income. But as time goes on you see people who started with very little become rich. You see them buy big houses, multiple luxury cars, and take trips around the world. You may be making $150,000 - $200,000 a year which is a very good salary because the average American makes $45,000.

 

But still even with that you see other people accumulate wealth, they can choose to work or not work. While you have no choice but to continue to work, because you are not rich. You feel this other person is being valued more than you are which makes you want fight for more money.

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

every boss should love it's union because a union should be an organized representation of the workers.

in france the film worker's union is so little and so sold to the producers that nobody listen to them and that's why we had a spontaneus massive stricke when enought was enought.

every union was negotiating it's little corporation benefits and when they asked workers to go back to work nobody will listen to them.

now the social situation is close to chaos and as a matter of result the general quality of productions in france is sincking.

salarys, healthcare everything is going down.

[Brad Grimmett]

They have stockpiled scripts, but there always seems to be a need for rewrites once shooting begins, which is the problem. But some movies & shows will try to go into production with these stockpiled scripts.

I just spoke to a friend of mine who is on a 1 hour network drama that said the show is set to keep shooting until Jan. I guess they'll just do without re-writes.

I'm expecting more reality shows to start popping up (if that's actually possible) if the strike continues for more than a few weeks. I just hope they're talking and actually trying to find a solution, as opposed to both organizations trying to win the battle in the press.

They chipped away at IATSE in the last contract, and I suspect that's their plan here as well. And then whoevers contract is up next will face the same tactics. And this will go on and on until we all stick together and stop them. I sure hope I'm wrong though.

[Guest Tim Partridge]

But in a "normal" working situation, the individuals are paid for the work they do at the time they do it. That should be enough, as it is enough in every other business relationship I know of. Except in the film business.

 

What about the music business??

 

A film composer once told me a funny story, about how one day he started getting loads of PRS forms in the mail, confirming that he was entitled to lots of free money. Initially he laughed it off and thought he best not tell anyone, afterall it was free money! However, the cheques kept coming and eventually he was very worried and called his agent, expecting the worst. It turned out that some pop group had sampled one of his old tracks and their album was a hit! The composer in question was admittedly so out of touch he had no idea his track had been sampled, AND his agent had to explain to him exactly what a sample is!

[Alessandro Machi]

I'm not tring to start a fight, but what if the dvd release or a movie ect fails and loses money? Is the WGA or SAG ect going to give money back.? I dout it. The writers get paid regardless if the production makes a profit, if it dosen't studios take the loss. The productions that make it big covers the ones that don't.

 

On the other hand, if the movie makes a huge profit, the residual never goes into overdrive does it? It stays at the same percentage no matter what. Do you see how that works, if the percentage stays the same, than the money losing films are offset by the films that make a lot of money, and in the end it's all the same. Many times the productions that lose money lose money because they are reserve options just in case the blockbuster fails. So it becomes easy to designate a movie as a money loser simply because it did it's job, which was to be available as a back up option for a failed block buster.

 

I gotta say your response to the posted letter was rather snarky and trivialized the life experience of someone who has probably created a lot of work for other unions, your brothers and sisters. To sort of focus your response to one aspect of the letter while ignoring the fact that the letter was based on a 20 year career is not very respectful, in my opinion. You read a letter from someone who has led an existence devoid of earned perks because they were denied "simple, logical" money due. You attempt to trivialize that 20 year rite of passage with a smart alecky two sentence answer.

 

Get a clue, that letter was from the elite of the creative animation business who was being denied a 48,000 dollar a year residual on a show that will get aired 400 times a year all over the world, and that seems rather ridiculous. It wouldn't surprise me if all the the money that has been "saved" by denying deserving creatives their small annual residual did little more than keep a couple of attorneys employed. Perhaps every year those attorney's primary responsibility was to create enough "savings" to retain their own mercenary jobs. I kind of wish those few attorneys who have siphoned the money that should have gone to the creatives would just die, or be exposed.

 

I wonder if an illegal quid pro quo case could be made here. The studios employ a few extra attorneys who justify their job by stealing perks from the creative side, and in turn those attorneys and their law firms are then available to the studios for other cases, perhaps even personal issues such as divorce cases for the studio elite. I would examine the very studio attorney's who siphon their living from the creative side and see how their law firms get rewarded by the studios. It looks to me like an insiduous, unethical relationship that should be busted open before they bust the unions.

 

You can't just divert deserving money from the creatives by hiring extra attorneys who in turn reward the studios with additional legal perks. That is worthy of investigation and disbarrment.

[Alessandro Machi]

.......As for the notion that writers don't share any risk when they write a movie, if they did by being profit participants only, then they'd be demanding more creative control over the project to protect their investment, and the studio execs, producers, and the directors may not want that. So to complain that the writers don't take a risk when they don't have the power to take that risk and manage that risk by controlling the production, is not very fair.......

 

 

........It basically comes down to the fact that the studios want to keep as much profit to themselves and not share it with anyone if they don't have to, even if the moneymaking project wouldn't even exist without the creative work of the writer. It's not a question of fairness to them, it's simply standard operating procedure, don't give away any money that you can keep for yourself. And they will use their deep pockets to try and break the backs of the unions in order to keep more of that money.........

 

David and I are making these exact same points and we may not have even read each others comments before making them.

 

What if every Friday, rather than directly cut checks to the writers, the payroll was doled out to an intermediate who was told, "Whatever you can keep for yourself, go ahead and keep, and pass out the rest." "Oh and by the way, I need you at my home this weekend to do security." (free of charge, wink wink nudge nudge).

 

Who thinks that is ethical? That is probably how the legal profession works with the studios and if I were the unions I would investigate this aspect and challenge it in court. It's diversion of creative monies that the studios knows it cannot hold onto. Rather than directly share it with those who actually do the work, they first share it with their own attorneys and in turn build up a cozy relationship that can be accessed at any time for all kinds of issues and situations, both personal and business related, and what's left of the payroll gets trickled down to the creatives.

 

If a union needs to be busted, it would the be union between too many lawyers and the studios who pay them to divert money from the creatives.

[Alex Ellerman]

I read about many indie films that have contracts with benchmarks, eg, "if your film makes $10m theatrical, then we give you a $500k bonus."

 

and the distributor pulls the film when it has $9.9m in revenue. wouldn't that suck???

 

further, writers are getting $0.04 per dvd... you figure a $25 dvd. that is a little over a tenth of 1%, ie 0.0016

[Chris Walters]

This is a little off the mark of this discussion, but as a non union electrician and aspiring DP would it be smart to fill the positions if the studios start going nonunion until they resolve the strike. I would get work but then I would be crossing the picket line of the very union I would want to be a part of? Its a catch 22 really. Does anyone have an opinion on the matter?

 

Chris Walters

[David Mullen ASC]

The WGA strike doesn't really affect you in the sense of risking being called a "scab" worker -- it's not an IATSE strike afterall, so crossing the picket lines to work is not issue if you are an electrician, only a writer. In fact, if you are a member of the electrics' IA local, it's against your contract to strike alongside the writers so in some ways, you have to cross the picket line...

[Chris Walters]

The WGA strike doesn't really affect you in the sense of risking being called a "scab" worker -- it's not an IATSE strike afterall, so crossing the picket lines to work is not issue if you are an electrician, only a writer. In fact, if you are a member of the electrics' IA local, it's against your contract to strike alongside the writers so in some ways, you have to cross the picket line...

Thank you for the response David... I'm surprised that the contract is against striking along side. I would have thought unions would be together but I suppose this was something the studios worked out to not lose everyone at the same time and really be screwed. Thank you again. Btw it was a pleasure meeting you in the theater at Panafest a few weeks back. Hope you enjoyed the presentations as much as I did.

 

Chris Walters