The Writers Guild is convening an "informational meeting" for Saturday evening at the Shrine Auditorium. Officially, the purpose of this gathering is to pass on info as to where negotiations stand…but leave us be honest. The main reason for announcing this kaffeeklatsch is to say to the AMPTP, "Hey, we're bringing the whole membership in…and on a Saturday evening, no less. It would be in your best interest for us to have a deal by then which we can enthusiastically recommend to the membership."
Could the deal be closed that evening? My understanding is no. The announcement says, "Neither the Negotiating Committee, nor the West Board or the East Council, will take action on the contract until after the membership meetings." I haven't seen an announcement yet on when the membership meeting for WGA East will take place. In any case, we'll know better where we stand after the meeting…and the Guild leadership will have a better sense of our unity and concerns.
Meanwhile, the rumor mill is spinning like a campaign consultant after a presidential debate. Tales abound of important screenwriters and showrunners uniting to pressure the Guild to take the current offer, whatever it is. There's a simple test as to whether these reports are true. If at the Saturday evening meeting, a number of important screenwriters and showrunners get up at the microphones and make direct or even veiled threats to go back to work regardless, then the rumors are true. If no such threats are made, the stories are not true and were never true.
I tend to believe the latter, at least until I see some names attached to these threats. So far, all I'm hearing for real is that some prominent folks think that from what they've heard, the deal is good enough to grab. That's not the same thing, especially when/if it's all coming from writers who are largely unaffected by minimums. My "sense of the Guild" is that while we're all eager to get this sucker behind us, we recognize that we're dealing with powerful forces who are out to wrong not only us but all the unions in town. If it takes time to get a settlement we can live with, it takes time.
Another rumor is that the negotiators have stumbled past the major stumbling blocks and that the only obstacle to a deal is the precise contract language. This may or may not be true…but the precise contract language is no small obstacle. Big companies have been known to agree to some pretty generous terms, figuring they can adjust the numbers or even renege outright by massaging the precise contract language.
I once had an offer that included a provision whereby I'd get 20% of the profits. This was back in the days when I was young and foolish…a term I often use to pretend that the foolish part of my life has ended. Anyway, I was impressed by the 20% until my agent said, "Yeah, but the definition of profits is so tight, it might as well be replaced by a sentence that says 'there will never be any.' They could offer you 200% of the profits and you'd still never see a nickel."
So whether they've agreed on the broad strokes of a deal or not, the thing needs to be committed to paper and scrutinized by lawyers before it's a contract. One hopes they're nearing that stage and that the looming Saturday meeting will hasten the process. One does hope.
And that's about it for rumors I've heard. I'm going to go out and vote and picket, not necessarily in that order.