The Broadway version of Young Frankenstein opened this evening. I think I'm seeing it next Thursday night.
Here's a link to an NPR story on Mel Brooks and the show. And there are a number of other radio clips about Mel to listen to on that page.
And you can see a pretty long video sampler over on this page. (Caution: The video starts automatically and may be loud.)
So…which do we think will prove to be more embarrassing to Rudy Giuliani? His relationship with Bernard Kerik, who today was indicted on multiple counts of tax evasion and corruption —
— or his relationship with Televangelist Pat Robertson? My money's on Pat.
While I've got your attention: Mayor Giuliani seems to like to dress up in women's clothing an awful lot for shows and stunts and parties. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
However, I think that if a possible/probable Democratic candidate for the presidency had even done that once, this election would not be about Iraq or Health Care or jobs or "the Economy, stupid" or any of that. It would wind up being about the charge that the candidate and anyone who'd even think of voting for him is a sexual deviant and a pervert. Somewhere on my hard disk I still have the e-mail from an acquaintance trying to convince me that John Kerry wasn't a "real man" because he went wind-surfing.
Time for more of these, starting with this message from Ed Coyote…
On basic principles, based on the YouTube video, I have no problems supporting the strike, or the writers' goals for fair compensation. That being said, I'm left with the impression that it was a strike at some point in the past that led to the residual payment plan in the first place, and with that having been established, the genie was let out of the bottle so to speak. If that first deal hadn't been cut, do you think some other compensation system would have been worked out? Or would the issue always come back to that, meaning more strikes along the way?
Beyond that, maybe you can help me with the math in the video. The original deal was for 2 1/2 cents on the dollar. Then there was the 80% reduction, which took it down to 1/2 cent on the dollar. Which means that the residual on a $19.99 CD works out to .09995 cents, which is damn close to a dime. I know it's not the only issue, but the math says you're doing better than the 8 cents you're looking for. Did I err? I mean, I must have, but I'm not seeing where based on the video.
Anyway, thanks for your time. I'm glad you're blog isn't covered by the WGA.
If it were, maybe I'd make a buck on it once in a while.
To your first question: I think that if the WGA hadn't established the principle of residuals when it did, it would have happened later, either because we fought for it then or another labor organization had set the precedent.
To your second: I think the math has been over-simplified a bit here for public consumption, and it omits a very important aspect of all this, which is that the way in which the DVD money is paid lends itself to what some people call Hollywood Accounting.
In its raw form, Hollywood Accounting is when you write the top-grossing movie of the year and your deal calls for you to receive 5% of the profits…only the studio forever claims that there are no profits. The film cost $50 million to make. It's taken in $500 million so far but around the same time, the studio decided they needed to spend a billion dollars to put up a couple of new office buildings…and of course, since people who'll work in those buildings work on the marketing of your film, that means the new buildings are an expense of your film and must be deducted before they get around the calculating profits, which means there aren't any.
Our DVD formula not only stinks but it's configured to allow for loopholes and number-juggling. The Producers can deduct some expenses before they pay you your teensy percentage. I don't know if it's still part of the WGA demands but at some point, one was going to be to clean up some of the language that lends itself to that kind of chicanery. Saying that we get four cents per DVD and want it upped to eight cents is not precise but it's close. The main stonewall in this area is that we think the number needs to be improved and the Producers are resisting the whole idea of ever raising it for any reason. They like how poorly all the unions (not just us) are paid and want to hold onto that for as long as possible.
Next, we have this from Janet Harriett…
Reports keep coming out of this show or that show "shutting down production." Does this mean the shows are effectively being cancelled, or will shows that have shut down come back with new episodes once the strike is over? I'm guessing some shows are fairly safe — Comedy Central isn't going to permanently boot The Daily Show — but could the strike jeopardize shows that were new this season, so they don't necessarily have a long track record with ratings or a lot of episodes to take them through an extended period of reruns?
Most shows will come back with new episodes whenever it seems possible to make them. "Shutting down" generally means they just can't film or tape them at the moment. However, networks would be cancelling some of these shows even if there was no WGA strike, so those shows probably won't come back. And I suppose the following is possible: A show is limping along with feeble ratings and the network is thinking of getting rid of it. If it shuts down because of the strike, that might seem like a good time to pull the trigger on it. They're certainly starting some new shows because of the strike. (A revival of American Gladiators hosted by Hulk Hogan? Wouldn't you have loved to have been in the meeting where they came up with that? I'll bet that meeting was more interesting that the show will be.)
And this last one is from Christopher Jones…
I watched the "Writers Strike: Why We Fight" video on your website, which ends with a statement urging the viewing to "Support the WGA."
OK, I'm sold (I was already). I'm thoroughly convinced that the WGA is fighting on the side of the angels. So what can I do to "support the WGA." I live in a suburb of Minneapolis, not Hollywood, so I can't come out and join the picket lines. What else could I do? Is there a fund to help support striking writers? Would writing letters actually help apply pressure to the producers in any meaningful way? Where would these letters need to be sent?
I don't know about any fund. I would think the two main things would be to help send out the right message and to bitch mightily about the reruns and the hardships and your favorite scripted entertainment being replaced by a revival of American Gladiators hosted by Hulk Hogan. If you hear your friends moaning about those overpaid, stuck-up Hollywood Writers who don't know how good they have it, set them straight. More important, you have an Internet. Use it to voice your support of our cause and your rejection of all that Management Spin.
If your favorite show is in reruns, don't watch 'em. Call or write to your local station or to the network and tell them you're going away and may not be coming back. It's the same way you'd protest if they cancelled your favorite show, the same numbers and address. You ought to be able to get it off the network's website.
Really though, there's not much you can do except to help us remind everyone who the Good Guys are in this battle. The Producers control a lot of the media and it's tough to fight them in that arena. Right now, we're doing great but if this strike goes on for a time, the stories won't be about Julia Louis-Dreyfuss coming out to join the pickets. Some members will get scared and the stories will be about them and their fears and problems. In '88, we got hammered by a lot of inaccurate press coverage and there is the hope that with the Internet now in the equation, some of that can be countered. So it would be nice if you all helped keep the faith on the web.
That's all for now but I did want to repeat my disclaimer: I'm not an official of the Guild, just a longtime member. Anything I post on this site is just my opinion…which is worth about as much as anyone's. Or maybe a little less.
The Writers Guild (my Writers Guild) has put together a little three and a half minute video that explains a few of the issues in our current strike. As you watch it, keep in mind there are others. And try to ignore the obvious jokes about whether the guy who wrote this got paid for it.
Rereading my answer to Martha Thomases (below) I see that in my haste to get back to work, I skipped over part of her question. Here's something else I should have said…
During a strike, it has sometimes been a WGA tactic to offer what are called interim agreements. We negotiate with this multi-employer bargaining unit called the AMPTP (Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers) which represents six big companies. Once we make a contract with them, all the other employers sign what are sometimes called "Me Too" agreements, meaning that they agree to abide by the same terms. So the AMPTP, in effect, negotiates on behalf of all the producers in town.
An interim agreement is when we're on strike and an independent producer says, in effect, "If you'll take me off the Strike List and let my writers return to work, I'll agree to your terms." There are variations on how these pacts are structured but in most cases, the Indie has a Favored Nations option. That is, he signs a new contract that the WGA draws up and then when we make our deal with the AMPTP — a deal which presumably will have more favorable terms for a Producer — the Indie can elect to switch to that. In any case, the principle is that they agree to sign with us, we go back to work at that studio and then, whenever the new contract is finalized, it displaces the interim agreement.
As a strike tactic, there are pros and cons of whether interim agreements help or hurt us in forcing a settlement with the AMPTP. Some also worry — and I think this is unwarranted but it is a concern — that it will wound Guild Solidarity if some members go back to work while others march the picket lines. In the past, we have sometimes (not always) offered interim agreements after a strike was on for a period of time…but the results have not been impressive. The AMPTP studios have put pressure on the independent producers not to sign them and it usually works. As Larry Gelbart once noted, an independent producer is a producer who's dependent on everyone else
Martha asked if Harvey Weinstein, for example, could go in and sign a WGA interim agreement. Well, if and when we offer them, he could. At the moment, the WGA is not offering interim agreements. As I understand it, the thinking is that we don't want to let a few, unimportant companies go back, at least not yet. If NBC wanted to sign, we'd probably make an exception because that would put pressure on the other majors. In fact, it would rupture the AMPTP and its precious collaboration…but signing a few companies won't put any heat on the Big Guys right now.
However, Harvey Weinstein probably wouldn't sign an interim agreement if they were available. Why? Because the members of the AMPTP — Sony, Universal, Time Warner, etc. — would have told him not to, and Harvey has to do business with those people. So it may not even matter if we offer them or not.
The other night, Glamour Magazine presented its Women of the Year awards. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was among the honorees and she was introduced by Stephen Colbert. Here is that introduction…
If you live in Southern California and were a fan of the late Paul Norris, you might want to make it to a public gathering in his honor. It's next Wednesday evening, November 14, in Oceanside, and it's at one of Paul's favorite restaurants. There will be an exhibit of his art but mainly, it'll be a band of his friends, fans and family members sitting around, talking about Paul. I'd be there if I could but alas, I'll be on the opposite side of the United States that evening.
If you'd like to attend, you'll be most welcome, I am sure. Drop me an e-mail and I'll send you more details, like the time and the address.
I'm taking twenty minutes off from an assignment that's due. Let's see how many of these I can get through in that time. I'll start with this one from Roger Green…
Are game shows affected by the writers' strike? Which current "reality" shows might be affected? And how about the news magazines such as 60 Minutes, or the Sunday morning news shows?
News shows are covered under a different contract. They may go on strike shortly but that's a separate matter. I can't tell you the precise list of "reality" shows affected nor which game shows are impacted, although I know some of both are. Jeopardy!, I'm pretty sure, is a WGA show.
Our next question is from Greg Eckler and his subject line says, "One difference from 1988"…
It comes at a time when California's housing market is in some turmoil and the California state budget is looking at a huge unexpected shortfall. A shutdown of the big industry will surely have them on edge at the State House or whatever it's called. Do you think the governor or others could/would intervene to hasten a resolution due to broader economic implications of a long stoppage?
My understanding is that Governor Schwarzenegger has declined to get involved and that may be wise, at least on his part. If he was party to a resolution, no matter what it was, he'd have someone accusing him of selling out one side or the other due to self-interest. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has offered to mediate but so far, his offers have been shunned by the Producers.
Ultimately, there's not that much any outside mediator can do apart from giving people who've said "We're not going back to the bargaining table" a way to save face when they go back to the bargaining table. In any strike, that's the main thing an outside mediator contributes. There is some value to an insider going back and forth between the two sides as, reportedly, John Wells attempted to do over the weekend. When this strike is settled, it'll probably be because one or more someones did a lot of that. But I doubt Schwarzenegger will be among them.
Next up is this message from Michael Fedoruk…
Would it not make more sense for the networks to show (or reshow) some of the shows (especially the ones from the last year or two) that they've cancelled, perhaps with a view that some of them might come back after the strike is over? I know that some shows are canned with unaired episodes. I also know that some would never come back (at least with all the original cast) but at least that would be more interesting to watch than a rerun of a rerun of the umpteenth showing of CSI:Whatever. I'm not trying to be callous to the rights of the Writers in that reruns may encourage the public to put pressure on the Producers to end the strike sooner rather than later but since these shows have already been produced what do the studios have to lose? Anyways, some residuals may be spread out a little farther by airing other shows. Just a thought.
Right now, the networks are probably most interested in coming as close to Normal as possible. There's a genuine worry that if shows disappear completely, they'd be more likely to lose audience loyalty and momentum than if they stick around in reruns. Whenever The Office runs out of new episodes, it'll go into repeats, the hope being that its loyal fans won't go off and find something they prefer at that hour. The network wants those fans to be around whenever production resumes, either because the strike gets settled or Steve Carell's balls return to their normal size.
At this point — and remember, we may be very early in the game here — the networks are most interested in projecting the message, "We don't need you…we can hold out indefinitely." If they start running the unaired episodes of Viva Laughlin, that will kind of undermine that message.
Just a little more time left so let's go to this one from Martha Thomases…
Are the producers united in their opposition to the writers' demands? Could a producer break away from their association and make a deal that goes beyond the minimum (current) WGA standards? That is, if, say, Harvey Weinstein was willing to share DVD/internet revenue, could he make an individual deal?
We don't know for sure but it's highly unlikely the Producers are precisely united. I mean, they're probably reasonably united in that they don't want to give Writers an increase in DVD money, a cut on Internet downloads, expanded jurisdiction, etc. But they're also probably yelling, even as we speak, over how cost-effective it is to take this strike and hold out and what they should offer to settle. Part of this is because these guys have different management styles but most of it is because they're not being hurt evenly. Some of them have more product in the pipeline and on the shelf. Some of them have more important projects that are now jeopardized.
A lot of what will happen in the coming weeks has very little to do with anything the Writers say or do or demand. It has to do with the member companies of the AMPTP arguing among themselves as to how to end this strike and what they're willing to give up in order to make that happen. If those guys can't agree, they can't make the offer that will do that. And they also have to figure on how to do that in a way that will minimize what they'll have to give the Directors Guild, the Screen Actors Guild and other unions who'll expect what we expect.
Here's another one from Martha — who, by the way, is a key player in a wonderful comics website called ComicMix…
There is so much evidence in the media news that there is money to be made from online advertising that I find it hard to believe that the producers actually claim ignorance on the subject. I mean, besides weekly editions of Advertising Age, AdWeek, etc., there are businesses such as (ahem) ComicMix and YouTube based on the assumption that it's profitable to put stories online. Are we supposed to believe that the MBAs who run the major studios know less than I do?
Oh, they know. No question they know…but they have to say something. It's just like when the President of the United States (any President) is caught lying or doing something incredibly stupid, the Presidential Press Secretary has to come out and say it's not a lie or that he didn't do what he did or maybe that someone else did it. Powerful people rarely admit errors and when you're negotiating with someone, they rarely admit that they have the money. I did some shows once for a producer who had so much money that he couldn't even store it all. He had to have it all scanned so he could store it on CD Rom. Still, every time we had to dicker over what I'd be paid for some project, he'd act like he didn't own eight cars and two homes, and that I was trying to bleed a pauper of his last buck.
This ties in with what will have to be the last question for now because I'm already over the twenty minutes. This is from Steve Jodele…
You've mentioned this man named Nick Counter on your blog. He's the spokesman for the Producers, I guess. What's the deal with him? Does he really think you guys are so unreasonable? Also, I heard Michael Eisner on Fox News say that this was a stupid time for the Writers Guild to go on strike and that they were asking for all the wrong things. Do you think he's right?
No, I think he's Michael Eisner. This is another one of those cases where it's insane to imagine that he could ever take any other position. Show me when Michael Eisner has ever said, "Hey, you know, this would be a great time for a union to go on strike." Or "Boy, that union really deserves what they're asking for." In his world, it's always the wrong time for anyone below the CEO level to say no to anything a studio head wants…always the wrong time for a union to ask for more.
Really, you can't take that kind of thing seriously, just as you have to view any statement from the AMPTP or even my beloved WGA as posturing in service of a desired goal. When Nick Counter comes out and says there will be no further negotiations for a long time, that may turn out to be a true statement but first and foremost, it's what he and his people think is the best thing to say at this moment from a strategic viewpoint. I met Counter during the '88 strike and talked with him and I think he expected people around him to just understand this; that it's all part of the game. He seemed like a nice guy when you were off the topic of the strike and the contract…but his role is to go out and say whatever his employers (the studios) want him to say.
It helps me to remember that there are just certain jobs in this world — like a lawyer arguing his client is innocent when he knows darn well the guy stabbed three nuns and killed a lhasa apso — where you're paid to say what you're paid to say. I'm not suggesting this is admirable or even forgivable. I've never believed that "I'm just doing my job" gets you off the moral hook when your job is to lie or cheat or hurt someone. But I do recognize that people do those jobs and that a lot of it is just like that moment in poker when you're sitting there with a pair of threes and it's in your best interests to convince the guy across the table that you have at least four of a kind, if not a royal flush. You know how candid and honest you are in that situation? That's about how candid the point men are during a labor negotiation and you can give yourself a real bad headache if you expect anything else.
That's all for now. Back to work…
Just got a message that says that production has shut down on the NBC hit sitcom, The Office. It seems its star, Steve Carell, has been calling in sick with what he claims is a case of "enlarged balls."
I'm pretty busy today — amazing, considering I'm on strike, right? — but I'm going to take breaks and answer a few questions. Here's one from Chris Carlisle…
Does the WGA represent comic books, and animation writers? Can you still write comics and animated programs, or does this strike only involve live-action tv and movies? I know this is a stupid question.
It may be but it's one I've received from a number of folks. The answer is that the WGA is only on strike against the specific areas that it covers and for which the contract has expired. It has nothing whatsoever to do with comic books or with writing novels or plays or software or magazine articles or newspaper columns or cute little predictions that appear in fortune cookies. It does pertain to some animation writing because the WGA has deals to cover some animation writing. So if you're writing cartoons, you need to check with the Guild.
A lot of people have also written to ask if I thought the strike meant that a flood of folks who previously made their livings on live-action TV shows and movies would come streaming in to write comic books and animation during the strike. Maybe some will.
I get the feeling that many WGA members aren't looking for other markets because they're still somewhat disbelieving in some ways that this strike could last for many months. Intellectually, of course, we all know that. Our last one in 1988 went 22 weeks, after all. But the purpose of Management not making a deal with us right now is to try and soften us up…scare us into accepting worse terms at some later date. And this Guild is so "together" — I still haven't heard one member say we should have taken the last offer — that we know that 60 or 90 days down the line, we will be no more likely to bite on a crummy deal than we are today. By then, we may even be more militant…if such a thing is possible.
And since we know that, a lot of us are wondering: How can they not know that? Some may think the Producers are swine-like greedheads but even folks who feel that way think we're up against shrewd swine-line greedheads who know to crunch numbers and make money. So you'd think they'd realize that all they're going to do by waiting to make a deal with us is cost themselves a lot of cash and further destroy their audience shares. You'd think they'd find some face-saving excuse to get back to the bargaining table soon and make the deal that they'll be prepared to make in January.
My guess is that some within the coalition of Producers want to but that they need to reach unanimity and haven't yet. The answer to the question, "How long will this strike last?" probably has everything to do with how long it takes the six member companies within the AMPTP to all get onto the same page. If rumors are true, in 1988, some of them were ready to settle pretty rapidly and one or two weren't.
Anyway, I don't think a lot of live-action writers have gone looking for comic book or cartoon work yet because though they're prepared for this strike to last a long time, they still don't feel like it will. If it does, we may see some low-level flooding.
Nice to see a lot of folks on the 'net have picked up the news about the passing of Paul Norris. I realized last night that though Paul told me that Aquaman drawing he did for me in 1995 was the first time he'd drawn the character in decades, that's not so. In 1987, DC commissioned this amazing "jam" drawing of all their major characters and Paul drew his waterlogged co-creation for that. I don't know if he forgot about that or if he was just trying to make me feel my piece was all the more special.
And I remembered two stories about Paul that I'll share here. In 1972, Gold Key Comics lost the rights to Tarzan. In a move it later regretted, the Edgar Rice Burroughs estate stopped the long-running Dell/Gold Key run and shifted their ape-man over to DC. The Gold Key version had been written since about the twelfth century by a man named Gaylord DuBois and it had been drawn its last few years by Paul. Missing nary a beat, the editors at Western Publishing (which published the Gold Key books) had them create something similar, which they did, and Gold Key began publishing The Jungle Twins. The above covers, I should mention, are paintings not by Paul but by a man named George Wilson. Paul drew the insides.
Part of what prompted this is that there had been a recent issue of the Gold Key Tarzan comic that had adapted the Burroughs kids' book, The Tarzan Twins, and that issue had sold particularly well. In fact, Western had been in talks to launch a bi-monthly Tarzan Twins comic when the Burroughs people made their move, so the publisher did The Jungle Twins instead with DuBois and Norris. Oddly, the "Tarzan Twins" issue of Tarzan had not been drawn by Norris and it was one of the very few issues not written by DuBois. Both functions were done on that one by Mike Royer.
So one day I'm up in the Gold Key offices and I'm browsing through the incoming artwork piles…and I come upon a just-finished issue of The Jungle Twins in which there's an amphibian character named Aquaman. Storywise, he isn't much like the DC Aquaman and even though he's drawn by Paul Norris, he doesn't look anything like that Aquaman…but he is called Aquaman! I go to the editor and inform him that, uh, DC Comics has a character named Aquaman and they've only been publishing him for, oh, about thirty years.
The editor was a gentleman named Del Connell, and Del just plain didn't read other comic books. Obviously, Mr. DuBois didn't, either. But before Del gives the order to change the character's name, we both wonder why Paul Norris — co-creator of the other Aquaman — hasn't said anything about it. Del phones him up to ask and Paul responds, "I didn't know if my Aquaman was still being published and I just figured you knew what you were doing."
By the way: The Jungle Twins wasn't a big success as a comic book. It started out with decent sales, actually outselling DC's Tarzan I heard, but that didn't do so well, either. There were seventeen issues of The Jungle Twins before it was cancelled in 1975. A few years later, Sid and Marty Krofft's company optioned the property for a potential live-action Saturday morning series and I wrote a pilot script that caused ABC to briefly place the show on its schedule…but then they changed their minds over there. In fact, three years running, they did that to me: Picked up a pilot I'd written and then changed their mind. The year after, it was another jungle show — an animated version of Lee Falk's comic strip, The Phantom. On and off the schedule in under a week.
It was, in the case of The Jungle Twins, quite a shame. As fans of such Krofft shows as Magic Mongo and ElectraWoman and Dynagirl are aware, Sid and Marty sometimes put some pretty attractive young ladies in revealing outfits on Saturday morn TV. In the comic book, The Jungle Twins were both boys. In my script — which had very little to do with that comic book, I'm afraid — one of the Jungle Twins was a girl and we actually got as far as some preliminary casting before the project fizzled out. If we'd cast the actress we were thinking of casting and we'd had her running around in jungle girl garb, there wouldn't have been a male in America — young or old, straight or gay — who wouldn't have been watching.
During this period, I was working with Paul on the Hanna-Barbera comics and one time when we got together, I took along a photo of this actress. Before I showed it to him, I asked, "Remember those two boys you drew in Jungle Twins? Tono and Kono?" Paul said he did. I said, "Well, if we do this show, this is what Kono's going to look like" and I handed him the picture in which the young lady was wearing about as much covering as one gets from a medium-sized Johnson & Johnson Band-Aid™. Paul took one look, grinned and said, "I must say, Hollywood has considerably improved on my work."
This one's a trailer for the Laurel and Hardy feature, Bonnie Scotland, which was not one of their best features…though it's a heckuva lot funnier than this ad would make you think. For some reason, whoever wrote all the witty sales pitches made a point of saying the movie is "60 minutes long" as if being that much longer than Stan and Ollie's usual shorts is a big selling point. But Bonnie Scotland was actually eighty minutes in length so I don't know what was happening there.
The Strike News, such as it is, is not good. The word is that the WGA dropped its demand for increased DVD revenues in exchange for a promise that the Producers would make a genuine offer in the area of Internet revenues. Then the Producers announced they were not making any sort of offer in the area of Internet revenues. Then the talks broke off — this all happened Sunday night — and the Producers walked out, except they say the WGA walked out, and the strike was on. Guild statements and rumors would seem to suggest that the demands with regard to DVDs will go back on the table whenever negotiations resume. The Producers are making noises like that may not be for a while.
What does it all mean? Hey, we told you more than a year ago here that — and I quote myself — "I think this town is heading for The Mother of All Strikes as the guilds demand a better deal for home video and the studios pursue their wish-dream of sharing nuttin' with nobody." That's where we are.
I'll post more about all this after I finish a couple of pressing assignments (not in areas the WGA covers, of course). In the meantime, go read Ken Levine and Brian K. Vaughan.
That's the lovely Penelope Pitstop, on her way to appear tomorrow on Shokus Internet Radio, a great thing to listen to on your computer. Actually, it won't be Penelope appearing tomorrow (Wednesday) on Stu's Show. It'll be Janet Waldo, the great voice actress who lent her tonsils to Penelope, Judy Jetson and many other fine cartoon characters for Hanna-Barbera and elsewhere. She will be a guest and my pal Earl Kress, Animation Writer and Authority extraordinaire will be a guest, talking about his work in cartoons and on their DVD releases, as well as any cartoon-related topic the callers deign to throw at him.
That's plenty but, as they say on infomercials, it's not all! I will also be a guest near the top of the show, phoning in to discuss the Writers Guild Strike, a topic near and dear to us all.
Stu's Show can be listened to for free if you go to the website of Shokus Internet Radio and select an audio browser. But this is not a podcast…you have to listen to it live as it happens, tomorrow (Wednesday) from 4 PM to 6 PM Pacific Time, which is 7 PM to 9 PM if you're on the East Coast. The show also repeats throughout the week, usually in the same time slot, but it's more fun to tune in while it's actually happening. You can even call in and be a part of the show. It's a lot of fun and it's free and what more can I say? Just listen.
Jeffrey Whyte sent me a long e-mail from which I am extracting this question for a public reply…
I understand that you have areas of dispute with the Producers. What I don't understand is why you have to strike. Isn't there an alternative?
Yeah…not to strike. And at the moment, no one can afford that, especially since it can only lead to us losing a lot of money and ground and then finding ourselves in the same situation, only worse, when the next contract expires.
The issues here are really pretty simple and you don't have to have an MBA understanding of DVD revenues or a futurist's insight into the evolving Internet market to grasp them. Our old contract has expired. Management has offered us a new and lousy contract that would increase their already-immense profits by taking money out of our pockets in many ways. We don't want the rollbacks. In fact, we think gains are appropriate at this time. We have been given two choices: Take the bad offer or strike. We choose to strike.
That really is all there is to it. Honest.
I don't know what you do for a living, Jeffrey, but I presume you have a job and you get a certain wage for it. Your life is built largely around that salary. The home you live in…the places you eat…the necessities you skimp on and the ones you can afford…they all key off of the size of that salary.
Let us say you work for a company that is very healthy. It is not failing by any definition and its top execs and owners take home mega-sums of money. Tomorrow, they decide to up their profits by cutting everyone's salaries a dime an hour. In that situation, you might shrug and say, "That's too bad but it's not worth making a fuss over." The next week, if your pay is cut another dime an hour, you might wince and say, "Ouch…but it will really screw my life up to quit and go look for another job. So I'll live with it." And then the next week, there's another dime gone and another. And then the cuts start going up — fifteen cents, twenty…then you start losing quarters.
At some point, you have to go, "Whoa! This must stop. I can still make my rent and buy potato chips but there's no justification for these cuts beyond my employer's greed. If they go on long enough, I won't be able to live and I'll have to take a bold stand, maybe even to the point of quitting. Better to do that now than later, after I've lost even more." (And you also may have reasons for drawing that line that aren't strictly monetary. You find that as you roll over for these salary cuts, you lose respect within the company, you feel insulted and even your job has gotten more difficult. Because the folks employing you are learning that they can do just about any damn thing to you and you'll go along with it.)
So you take your stand as we have taken ours. We take ours by striking…not because we love having no income and so much uncertainty in our lives and walking around with signs, but because we really only have the two choices and the other one truly sucks.
You'd like to think there's a third option. On blogs discussing the strike, I sometimes see that — "It didn't have to come to this. If our leadership had handled things differently, we'd have a great deal now instead of a strike." But I never see what that alternative is or was. Even with the benefit of hindsight, those who say the preceding only seem to be able to explain it in vague terms like, "I would have set up a dialogue" or "I would have gone to the negotiating table earlier."
I don't believe there's ever been much of a third option. Why? Because the people we negotiate with — the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers — like it the way it is, with only the two options. It's a system that usually works for them. It may also fill some emotional need they have to control the game and use their very size to intimidate others…but basically, they do it because it usually works. It enables them to grab those dimes. Most unions, when it comes time to negotiate, will give up something rather than plunge into a war. They'll be glad the dimes aren't (yet) dollars and might even hail that as a victory for their side.
The WGA has done it both ways in the past. We've had labor peace since '88 for two reasons. One is that in '88, we said no. We went on strike for 22 weeks in order to say no.
We took a huge rollback in '85. Immense. I think some members from that time are still In Denial as to how much we gave up that year. For obvious reasons, I have a kneejerk defense reflex when anyone belittles Writers but speaking of that contract, I'll say it: We were gutless idiots.
And then in '88, the Producers did what anyone would do when they had someone that stupid on the hook. They handed us another pile of rollback demands — not as huge but still huge — and again, gave us the two choices: Accept this or strike. That year, we struck. You can certainly make the case that in a strict dollars-and-cents accounting, what we gained did not balance against 22 weeks of loss, but that's not the point. We had to stop that pattern or there's no telling how much we'd have lost in subsequent contracts and how destructive it would have been to fight that battle at a later date.
Saying no in '88 was one reason there hasn't been a Writers Strike since the year Michael Dukakis was nominated for President. The other was that eventually, we started saying yes to the dime cuts. The first contract we made after '88 had no real rollbacks in it and actually a few modest gains. (Anyone wonder why that was?) In subsequent deals, we accepted some dime cuts and postponed some areas of contract improvement that we thought were overdue. I'm not sure that those were wise choices on our part. Some would say that our leaders — particularly some leaders who were writer-producers or maybe writer-PRODUCERS — were too reticent to make trouble. Others would say that for various reasons, the will of the membership was just not there. I don't know.
But I do know that this time, the will is there, just as I also know that the dime cuts have turned into dollars. This is the time to stop that tactic again.
I was explaining this yesterday to some folks on the picket line and one said, "There is a third way. We could have worked without a contract until the Screen Actors Guild's contract is almost up and then struck." That's a good point but it isn't a way not to strike. It's just a question of how to strategize that strike. After hearing the pros and cons, I think now is a better time. Sadly but really, it only comes down to the two choices.
One other thing. This is our battle but it's not our battle. Some of the things we're fighting for like increased jurisdiction over Animation, Reality Shows and Game Show are WGA issues. But all that Internet stuff, all that talk about wanting to be paid when our work is streamed over the World Wide Web…that's an issue for the actors and the directors and almost everyone in town. I wish the Screen Actors Guild contract was expiring now and ours was up the middle of next year instead of the other way around, because they may be better equipped to fight that part of the battle. They can shut the town down a lot faster than we can. But that's not the way the expiration dates happened to fall so we're the first ones into the fray. If you're not a fan of strikes — if you're weeping that your favorite shows are suddenly in reruns or endangered — you'd better hope the WGA does well. Because wait'll you see what SAG will do if they get stuck with the same two choices.