Writer's Guild Going on Strike

IATSE is once-again seemingly getting the short shrift in all of this. While they have to sit on the sidelines with SAG and WGA, they are not getting anything out of this and they got shorted in their last negotiations. There are serious impacts such as some members losing their health insurance as their work hours don't meet benefit requirements.
 
Ticket brokers get a fee for online ticket sales but it's a value added service charge. Music streamers pay licensing fees built into the subscription model.

The demand that AI methods not be used is vague and unenforceable. Every industry, and every worker must adapt to the changing landscapes of technology.
 
Paul F said:
Here's the other thing I think the producers are concerned with. Residuals are a model that works for them. They can share profits as they are made and the profits are clearly there. But if they give away profit points, it opens up a box they don't want to open...... If they give points to SAG then of course, the WGA and DGA are going to say "Where's ours?" and they are off to the races giving away more and more of the pot. That's just not something that works for them. If they give 2 points away to the three unions, hey, suddenly 6 points are gone. And then each union will want another point at every new contract negotiation.

It's an interesting conundrum. Maybe the 2% share is a 'we know we can't get it, but it will make alternatives look a lot better' negotiating point from SAG's side.
Click to expand...

Wait, weren't they already getting residuals in the broadcast world? Why would continuing that model with streaming fail?
 
Doug Jensen said:
Hey, here's a revolutionary idea: You show up . . . do your job . . . collect a check . . . and move on to the next project. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Above the line folks previously had ownership share of the material. Why would they want that to change just because the distribution medium has
 
Doug Jensen said:
99.9% of workers in the world do not rely on residuals. They do a job, get paid, and that is the end of it. As Tom says, if you want to participate in possible profits, then become an investor in the project, or buy some stock in the movie company, or fund your own production. Why do these union people beleive they are so special that they need to keep their hooks in a production for eternity? I suggest the negotiate for a fair rate to do the work and be done with it.

Does the worker who does the typesetting or cover design for a novel get extra pay if the novel becomes a best seller? No. He/she does their job, gets a check, and goes home. So much simpler for everyone. Of course, the laywers and accountants love things the way they are because it keeps them in business. The same reason we will never get meaningful tax reform or healthcare that makes sense. Too many poeple profit from a broken system.
Click to expand...

There is no natural or God-given model of economic enterprise here. That's the point of negotiations. Each side just negotiates for as big a piece of the pie as they can get. While your comparison to other industries is sensible, the closest comparable is the arrangement these folks had until now with theatrical/broadcast/DVD distribution. Why on earth would they want to give that up? In this negotiation, they're the ones trying to maintain the status quo and the other side is trying to gain ground. Furthermore, my understanding is that the unions played softball with streamers at the beginning of their relationship because they wanted to nurture streamers' growth. Big mistake.
 
Paul F said:
Yes, that is one way to look at it. My guess is that the unions view it that way. Another view is that the people that financed and created the jobs are the most deserving of the profits. I'll bet the producers view it that way.

There's something for everyone.
Click to expand...

Incidentally, one of the innovations of NFTs that was hailed as a positive was that artists would be able to dictate a share of the sale value go to them each time the artwork changed hands. (No more selling a piece for just $100 that later makes millions for someone else.) Regardless of how you feel about that arrangement, it has been widely trumpeted as a positive innovation. (That's a separate matter from the issue of whether or not NFTs have inherent value.)
 
Tom Roper said:
The wage earners are not stakeholders. If they were entitled to a share of the profits, should they not also be responsible for the same share of the loss?
Click to expand...

Negotiating a share of profits for the worker will almost necessarily involve lowering the up-front payment the worker receives, thereby lowering the risk taken by the investor (and increasing that taken by the worker). Come on guys, this is basic economics...
 
Doug Jensen said:
.

When Virgin Galactic went belly up a couple of months ago the value of my stock went to zero. But the employees got their final paychecks and went to work someplace else. When a TV show gets cancelled, the writers get their checks and go write for another show. But the owner of the show has lost their investment.
Click to expand...

Some of those employees surely were paid in part with stock options and, presumably, worked harder for the company on account of them.

Let's say that an actor is working entirely for residuals with no up-front payment. They are taking a risk even though they only have their time, labor, and reputation to lose rather than a financial investment.
 
drboffa said:
). The current thinking, in the US, is to prioritize owners and investors. One would even say to excessively valorize them. My view, and a minority but growing view (I hope), is to prioritize people who work for a living.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There's no right or wrong in this negotiation. Whatever you think is the natural outcome says more about your personal philosophy than anything else
 
Doug Jensen said:
Owners and investors are NOT prioritized.
I'm pretty sure that the order of payment in a bankruptcy is: 1. Employee wages. 2. Vendors. 3. Investors. Plus in many cases, the employees have unemployment benefits for many weeks or months, so their income doesn't go to zero.
Click to expand...

Secured creditors are prioritized over employees but shareholders are not.

If a firm fails and the assets are sold, the proceeds are distributed in this order: costs, secured creditors, employees, unsecured creditors and, finally, shareholders.
Click to expand...
https://work.chron.com/gets-paid-first-company-goes-bankrupt-7496.html

And you have to pay into the unemployment system to receive benefits, so that's pretty much just your own money coming back to you.
 
ahalpert said:
Wait, weren't they already getting residuals in the broadcast world? Why would continuing that model with streaming fail?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think residuals are the answer; continue on that model. Why not as I said in another post. But revenue points is not the same as residuals. They are quite far apart in my mind.

So continue with residuals......but...... This is the problem with an adversarial relationship that exists by contract. The contract is everything and each side fights to keep what they have and get more from each contract. So if there is nothing in the contract that says they have to pay anything for streaming, producers by virtue of the contract relationship, aren't going to give up anything unless the union fights for it. And the union isn't going to ask for what they really want. They are going to shoot high and settle for something less. That's just generally how the game is played.

So, ask for 2% of revenue and then a residual deal looks reasonable from that starting point.

Oye. I hate this stuff. That's why when I was a young lad and went to the studio lots looking to break in and I read up on contracts and the rules.... well, it just wasn't for me. The price paid to do what so many like to do is too steep for me. My hats off to the people that do what they love to do and are willing to do what it takes to be involved in this work.
 
The thing is with residuals...it's tied to copyright.

So in the typesetting example, you're not just setting the type. You created your own unique one-of-a-kind font just for that one book, AND no one else could do it like you did it. Not only that, the guys that invested in the making of this book use your name and image to promote the sales of the book too.

Copyright is the key difference and for the actors, the use of their uniquely owned image and voice.

We in local 600 used to get residuals as well but I believe it was traded away in the 90's for better health and pension funding.

Also it's not *really* producers here, it's STUDIOS. It might say P in AMPTP but they are the execs and the studios themselves.

Most of the producers I've talked to are very supportive and understanding. Showrunners in TV are the producers. They're the ones on strike remember.
 
ahalpert said:
Furthermore, my understanding is that the unions played softball with streamers at the beginning of their relationship because they wanted to nurture streamers' growth. Big mistake.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a big mistake. Kind of like when we all get a new client who says "hey, just do this first shoot at a discount and then you can charge your normal rate later. We're gonna have a lot of work for you." Suckers. My advice is to charge whatever can get right up front, cash the check and move on to the next project. Nothing could be more simple that that. If you don't like what the client wants to pay up front, move on.

I've hired a lot of on-camera talent and a couple of writers over the years. If any of them thought they deserved anything beyond the check I wrote them they wouldn't have been hired in the first place.
 
Tom Roper said:
The demand that AI methods not be used is vague and unenforceable. Every industry, and every worker must adapt to the changing landscapes of technology.
Click to expand...

Studios (and publishers) have managed to write laws in their favor that essentially negate the technological advancements of how digital "copies" work—e.g., there are "waiting lists" for ebooks in libraries, which is almost comically absurd. Or arbitrary limitations on what DVD/Blu-Rays will work in particular regions. Or licenses to digital content purchases that are essentially just long term loans. When it is convenient for them to make technology bend to their will (and their bottom line) studio owners figure out a way to do so.

I'm not necessarily in favor of their tactics, but it does show that making technology work for people is possible. It's just that right now we let the capitalist class set the rules of the game for how we use technology. In a different world, we would let people most affected by technologies—such as workers—have a say in how they're used. To me, this is all that the unions are asking for, which seems entirely reasonable.
 
So when SAG-AFTRA President Fran Drescher said they were "financially prepared" on 'Today' to strike for 6 months, who was she speaking for, the 501C non-profit organization or the 160,000 members of the guild? Was the strike called by a union vote? Isn't the association a collective of independents, that agree to have the union bargain for them with the studios and streamers? Do the members receive union benefits during the strike? What I had read about the member agreement with SAG was that the members agree basically (with some exceptions) not to work for non SAG productions, and that the members bargain for themselves as independent contractors, or at least set their own rates. As well, not every subset of SAG is on strike.

Secondly, I looked for other 501C non-profits that might have organizational similarities and scope, and found something very different but just as controversial, the PGA Tour. In both cases SAG and PGA, by IRS rules profits cannot inure to 501C directors, that while they can have salaries they cannot become enriched from revenues.

So here is the point, the PGA had accumulated monies from TV and sponsorship deals, provided some benefits like health insurance to PGA members, and when the Saudi backed rival LIV came in with its challenge, poaching away the top PGA tour players like Brooks Koepka, Dustin Johnson and Phil Mickelson with direct payments and huge tournament purses, the PGA had to respond by increasing the prize money payouts at its own tournaments by $300M in 2022, which it was able to do but not indefinitely. And then in the end, the PGA and LIV merged meaning the PGA would continue managing tournaments as they always did, but all under Saudi control. The tour players at large got nothing.

So coming back to SAG-AFTRA, did the union vote this strike and agree to put themselves out of work for up to six months while the leadership negotiated residuals for the elite members at the top?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top