Letters…we get letters…we get stacks and stacks of letters…like this one from Keith Holt…
I've got a WGA negotiations question because I'm sure you haven't received enough of these yet. I was speaking with a friend recently about the strike, and though we both support the writers fully, he had some issues about how the strike's been handled. Neither of us are WGA members and we get most of our information from friends who are WGA members and writers who blog, like you.
From what he's heard, the writers are asking for a "per click" residual for programming viewed online. Which would mean, based on his friend's interpretation, that every time a program is clicked, even after the viewer pauses it to go to the bathroom or answer the phone or whatever, the writer would get the click residual; sometimes 3 or 4 clicks per episode. The producers contend that the writers should only receive credit for the first click, which doesn't sound unreasonable to me, speaking from my side of the TV set. I hoped to get your input.
On another question, do you know how residuals are divided for TV series box sets? If, for example, let's say a series had three credited writers for each episode of a series, and the series had 100 episodes. The series is released in a box set of 10 dvds with 10 episodes per disk. Is the .04 cents paid out per disk (meaning .40 cents for the entire set)? If so, are the 30 writers who wrote those 10 episodes expected to divide the .04 cents between them? And are the 300 writers for the entire series only receiving .001 cent for each episode they wrote? I could go on and on with different permutations of this, but you get the idea? How does this work?
The joke/true answer to how it works is "Not very well," in that those DVD sets don't pay much money to the writers of the shows. We have a lousy formula for this kind of thing — the result of the kind of crummy deal we're now trying not to repeat — and it doesn't seem to even yield the kind of bad money it was supposed to yield. I would guess that if you polled writers who've had shows released on DVD, 90+% of them would tell you that they haven't even received the meager payments they're contractually guaranteed, let alone anything that seemed fair. Most would also tell you that they didn't even get a free copy of the DVD set containing their work.
But here's a more serious answer to your question: My understanding is that it's all pro-rated. If they put Season 1 out on DVD and you wrote 2 of the 24 episodes then you get one-twelfth of all the money that is collected for writers on that set. The guild's computer works it all out.
As for the click situation, I don't have any direct knowledge but I would imagine that we're trying to link to the way a website is compensated for its advertising on a per-click basis. So however the rules for that works would be the model for how our shares would work. Most of the WGA proposals in New Media are on a "when you get paid, we get paid" basis.
A person who asked to remain nameless sent the following some time ago, before the Golden Globes and before the WGA decided not to picket the Grammy Awards…
I'm a little befuddled as to how the WGA is picking and choosing which awards shows they give a waiver to, or plan not to picket. I understand the Golden Globes and the Academy Awards are high-profile events involving Hollywood that get worldwide coverage (well, the Oscars do). But if they decide to picket the Globes, and the broadcast is cancelled because of it, why do they not do the same for the SAG Awards, which is also broadcast (albeit on lowly cable stations)? And what's up with the Grammy Awards? Why won't they grant a waiver to something that is essentially a music industry showcase? Is it the high-profile aspect of it? Aren't they running the risk of just pissing off the viewing public eventually? (Not that I'd ever watch the Grammys.)
It's all strategizing, trying to pressure those we want to pressure. The Screen Actors Guild has become an inseparable ally in this strike. If and when someone writes a dispassionate history of this strike, they'll need to dwell on that unprecedented and important symbiosis. So of course, we're not going to move against the SAG Awards. At some point, it was presumably determined that the Grammy Awards were far enough removed from the central battle — or maybe that we couldn't have much of an impact on them — and our Guild decided not to make a stand there.
Our next one is also from someone who didn't want their name used…
I'm still fuzzy on what it means that the WGA decided to drop its demands on Animation or what it would have meant if their demands would have been met. Also, didn't your president promise that Reality (or as you type it, "Reality") would be in the next contract? How can he promise that and then take it off the table?
The same way the AMPTP can swear up and down and on a stack of stockholders' reports that they will never give in on certain points and then later, they give in on them. In negotiations, both sides say plenty of things that they must later back away from. In '88, I think the studios gave us at least three separate "final offers," each time vowing that there would never be another offer if we didn't grab the current "final offer." It's a lot like the way even the most honest elected official has to quietly renege on or finesse his way around a campaign promise or two.
But in actuality, I don't believe Patric Verrone did say that our new demands relating to reality (or as I type it, "Reality") would definitely be in the next contract. I think if you find the exact quote — as I can't at the moment — you'll see that he said something like, "Reality will be in the next contract because Reality was in our last contract," and he noted how the WGA does cover many of those shows. What we were after in this negotiation was an increased presence in that area and also, I believe, to knock down some of the ways in which producers hire writers, have them write for low money, and then call them something other than "writer" to try and elude WGA jurisdiction.
Animation is a little different. The WGA represents some animated TV shows and will surely represent more in the future. Some shows and studios are already signed with The Animation Guild, which is Local 839 of IATSE. Those shows and studios, we cannot touch and our proposal (which I quoted here) specifically said it did not apply where an existing collective bargaining agreement was in place. But there are many studios that are not signed with 839 and the WGA has made inroads there.
This is not always possible. There are cartoon studios that are fiercely determined to remain non-union, just as there are live-action movies and TV shows produced outside the jurisdiction of the WGA, DGA, SAG and other labor organizations. But the WGA has made, and I believe will continue to make progress in organizing animated TV shows. Where it hasn't had as much luck has been in the area of animated features. There's language in our Minimum Basic Agreement that defines the WGA jurisdiction for movies as confined to live-action. When the folks behind the Simpsons TV series wanted it to be a WGA show, the head guys over at Fox had to say yes. When the same folks wanted the Simpsons movie to be WGA, Fox was able to say, "Sorry…the Writers Guild MBA says it doesn't cover this kind of thing" and they were able to say no. What the WGA wanted out of this negotiation — the demand that was just dropped — was basically to alter the language that allowed them to say no.
Dropping this demand is disappointing to Animation Writers who, by a margin I'd estimate at better than 96%, want WGA coverage…but it's not a total disaster. One of the things you have to remember is the old "rising tide raises all ships" principle as it applies often to union activity. The presence of a union deal in a marketplace usually improves things at even the non-union houses. They need to stay competitive in order to attract the talent they need and also to keep the union out. I worked briefly for an animation company called Film Roman back when it was keeping 839 out…a feat they accomplished largely by giving their employees darn near everything they would have gotten with a union contract. (It was not until the firm was sold and new management made some cutbacks that the union was able to win representation there.) In the same way, the proximity of WGA deals in animation has forced some studios to treat writers better even on non-WGA shows. As long as the WGA is not abandoning Animation altogether, which it has no intention of doing, it's going to be improving conditions for folks who write cartoons.
We (of course) wish it could do more. But the WGA is at war right now, and settling this war means compromises from both sides. I thought there was a decent shot at not compromising on this but something has to go, and I'm not sure what else I'd have picked to sacrifice. Having talked extensively with Patric about Animation and knowing his determination in that area — which even goes beyond the fact that he works in it — I know it was not a decision made lightly. In past AMPTP/WGA negotiations, when the studios were refusing to even listen to WGA demands, the "Animation Proposal" never even made it onto the table for discussion. This time, it not only did but was serious enough to become a partial obstacle to a deal. That's progress.
