Tuesday, December 14, 2004

The Great Negotiation-After-the-Fact Scam

Over at his weblog, Tom Tomorrow writes about a problem he had that I've also had and that many freelance writers and artists have endured. In his experience, he wrote something for Slate and then, months later, they sent him all sorts of forms he'd have to sign in order to get paid for the work. He found some of these forms objectionable but that almost isn't the point. Even non-objectionable terms should be disclosed and mutually agreed-upon before the work is done. Once you do the work, you're pretty much stuck. You can't undo the work, can't take back the time and effort you put into it.

Sometimes, you can argue them into dropping the requirement that you sign away your First Born to get the $300 that they owe you, but sometimes you can't. At least three times that I can think of in my career, the following situation presented itself: I was hired by someone with whom I had a good, ongoing relationship. In other words, a friend. After the work was done, that person came to me and said, often apologetically, "The front office says you have to sign this to get paid. I'm sorry I didn't tell you about it before but I just found out they have this procedure on work of this sort." So if I object and don't sign, I don't get paid and I get my friend in trouble. I once had one call me and say, in effect, "Please...I was new here, I didn't know about the procedure. They're going to fire me if you don't sign."

Another variation: You do the job January 1. By February 1, you haven't been paid so you inquire. They send you a new contract form which went into usage on January 15 and they say, "Here's what you need to sign before the accounting department can issue you a check." You object to the content of that form and you point out that they're changing the terms of the work after you've done the work. They say, "Well, this is how it is. The parent company, which is in Botswana and where no one speaks English so you can't talk to them, has instituted this new policy. The accountants are strictly forbidden to issue a check unless they have that form on file." This has also happened to me at least three times, probably more.

Writers, artists and other kinds of freelancers get burned by this, one way or the other, no matter what they do. There have been times when I've walked away from money that was owed me. There have been other times when I've signed contracts that I'd never have signed, had I seen them before I did the job. Sometimes, I've felt baited-and-switched. Other times, I've felt it was primarily my own fault for not saying to the person doing the hiring, "Okay, but before I do the work, please send me a copy of all documents that pertain to this assignment." This is not always easy to say, especially when they're calling you with a great job or one that they need in a hurry. But it should be said, especially in the age of the Internet and fax machines when they can have that information to you in a matter of minutes. We all need to say it often enough that it becomes Standard Operational Procedure.

• Posted at 3:24 PM · LINK

Book Report

I still haven't gotten around to reading (or even getting) the new Gerard Jones book on the history of the folks who shaped the comic book industry, Men of Tomorrow. But my pal Pat O'Neill has done both and written his review.

• Posted at 12:02 PM · LINK

More Python Press

Dave Eggers writes a nice piece in The New Yorker on Monty P. and their upcoming Broadway excursion. Also, here, Eggers is interviewed and elaborates. Check both of these out now as New Yorker links have a way of not being active for long. [Thanks, "larrybatman," for pointing it out.]

• Posted at 11:22 AM · LINK

Today's Political Rant

This morning, George W. Bush presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom to retired General Tommy Franks, who oversaw combat in Afghanistan and the initial invasion of Iraq, former CIA Director George Tenet and former Iraq administrator L. Paul Bremer. Franks, I can almost see. Things did go well, at least for a time in Afghanistan...but he was a leading advocate of the position, which I don't think anyone now thinks was wise, that we didn't need more boots on the ground in Iraq. Still, I can't even give half-credit to Tenet or Bremer, and I think even a lot of Bush supporters would love to blame them for all the screw-ups and failures. The trouble is that this administration's policy is to never admit there even have been screw-ups or failures.

This is more of that "I meant to do that" mentality. We don't admit when things go wrong. We insist they went so right, the people responsible are deserving of medals. It keeps the denial going...and in this case, it may prevent either Tenet or Bremer from writing a book that the Bush administration won't like.

• Posted at 11:12 AM · LINK

Spamalot Patrol

Nice article on Eric Idle and his new Monty Python musical in the Chicago-Tribune. [Registration required but free] Amusingly, Slate today makes reference to "Mike Nichols' inspired musical about Monty Python." Nichols is directing but isn't it pretty obvious that the possessive here is misdirected and that the driving force in this project is Mr. Idle? Also, of course, the adaptation of their Holy Grail movie is not "about Monty Python." [Thanks to Steve Pyskoty-Olle for the Idle gesture.]

• Posted at 10:29 AM · LINK

Morning Thoughts

I never followed the Scott Peterson case. I don't know how obvious it is that he killed his pregnant spouse (assuming he did) and I have no more emotional investment in the matter than I have for any homicide involving people I never heard of before. I gather that this one got as much attention as it did because the media was hungry for another O.J. fest and the Robert Blake trial was not moving fast enough. Also, some anti-abortion forces wanted to sell the idea that Peterson had killed two human beings, one of whom just hadn't been born yet, so they apparently helped keep the matter front and center.

Two things did bother me, one being the whole concept of "the penalty phase." For seven days, the jury heard testimony about what kind of man Scott Peterson is, with the prosection defining him as "the worst kind of monster" and the defense arguing that he was deserving of sympathy and that killing him would just perpetuate the "senseless killing." I don't get the concept here, I'm afraid. If the jury decides beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy did it, then they've pretty much decided what kind of man he is. He's a First Degree Murderer. He may be a cute First Degree Murderer or a pathetic First Degree Murderer or a First Degree Murderer who had a rough childhood...but the guy is still a First Degree Murderer and should receive whatever the penalty is for First Degree Murder. We can argue about whether it should be death — I'm real torn on that issue — but that's a decision that should be made by society as a whole, not by twelve people who couldn't get out of jury duty.

Second thing that bothers me: People cheering the sentence. I get the sense that people cheered the verdict as well, and it wasn't because they'd carefully studied the case and decided justice demanded Scott Peterson's destruction. They just kind of decided the guy was a smug slime who must've done it, the same way a lot of them were sure about Gary Condit. They may be right this time but I still don't see conviction and sentencing as a cause for jubilation. I think it's just sad that a human being does such a thing and then society has to turn around and end another life, whether via the Death Penalty or by tossing the person in San Quentin forever, which is almost the same thing. Perhaps if I had an emotional stake in a homicide trial — say, if a loved one had been the victim — I'd feel I'd "won" something with the verdict because I could now put the whole matter behind me and get on with my life. But most people didn't know the Petersons, didn't care a bit about them until the matter hit Basic Cable, and followed the case by choice. They could have put the matter behind them at any time just by turning off Larry King Live. So what's to celebrate?

• Posted at 9:09 AM · LINK