Kris Mandt writes…
When you get a chance please explain what "financial core" means as it applies to members and I guess now former members (it was on Nikki Finke's blog) of the WGA. Are they just non union writers?
Financial Core (which is sometimes also called Fiscal Core) is a special category/status that a person can elect with regard to the union that covers the field in which they work. Essentially, it's a way to resign the union and still work in whatever the industry is.
The category was invented as a result of several lawsuits, and I believe the main stated impetus for them was that certain folks objected to a union in which they were members doing political-type lobbying and campaigning. Unions do that, of course, trying to promote legislation and other government actions that the union leaders (whoever it is at that moment) feel will be beneficial to the labor organization. There were union members who said, in essence, "Hey, my union is donating dues money — some of which is mine — to support Candidate X. That's a violation of my rights because I want Candidate Y." There were also folks who for whatever their reasons, just didn't want to belong to the union.
So a parlay of legislation and court decisions created Financial Core status. If you elect to take it, you pay only the portion of union dues that actually go to the maintenance of the union contract. You forfeit your right to vote on that contract or on anything else within the union. In exchange, you are no longer bound to the union rules, most notably its strike rules. When the union is on strike, you can cross the picket line and go to work. You can also work year 'round for the non-union companies that the union members are obligated to avoid.
This may sound like the best of both worlds to some — you get the benefits of the union contract without any of the sacrifice that is occasionally necessary to secure that contract — but there's another side to it. And that other side is the reason why very few people opt for Financial Core status. It's kind of scummy.
That "best of both worlds" aspect causes most onlookers to consider it a category of selfishness; of individuals saying, "I demand all of the benefits but I'm not only refusing to fight for those benefits, I'm going to actively subvert those who do." There are convoluted rationales of how that's not quite so. Those who choose F.C. will assert it is due to principles and ethical considerations, not opportunism…and perhaps in some cases and in some ways, that's so. I don't think it is generally viewed that way by others. It just looks, like I said, kinda scummy and selfish.
Generally speaking, those who choose to "go Core" seem to have one or both of two motives. One is an angry dispute with the union over its rules or rulings. Occasionally, the Guild in enforcing its rules, tells some member "You can't do that" and the member goes ballistic and quits. The Writers Guild has an arbitration process that sorts out what are often fiercely-conflicting claims as to who should get the "Written by…" credit on a movie or TV show. As with every arbitration process that has ever existed on this planet, there are those who lose an arbitration and feel they have been wronged…and this has driven a few to Financial Core. (I believe George Clooney is a fairly recent example. He didn't like the determination of writing credits on Leathernecks.)
The other motive is simple financial advantage: Someone thinks it will enhance their income if they can work for the non-union companies, work during a strike, work for less than union minimums, etc. At the very least, they don't have to pay full dues. There have been no surveys to my knowledge but I would guess that when someone goes Core, about 98% of all who hear of it presume this is the operative reason and that all that talk of principle and protest is just a bogus rationale for greed.
Some, I suspect, also figure the person in question must be pretty desperate for work. When I started out in the business of professional writing, a gentleman with much experience said to me, "When a writer looks desperate, he might just as well be wearing a big sign on his ass that says in flashing neon letters, 'I'M NOT VERY GOOD!'" My own observations since then would bear that out.
All of this explains why even during a prolonged strike such as the one we all recently endured, very few members of the Writers Guild decide to go Financial Core.
Most of those who did are soap opera writers and as such, they face a particularly brutal situation. When the WGA strikes, they're pretty much the first ones on the line — their shows don't shut down. They go on without them. They go on with scab writers who too often are rewarded for their scabbery with permanent, post-strike employment. Soap writers also sometimes feel under-represented by the Guild. They aren't numerous enough to get the same attention as those who write screenplays or prime time episodic TV. I happen to feel the WGA has often been short-sighted in this way, and not just with regard to those who script daytime dramas.
However, none of that excuses the actions of those who go F.C. on us. I share to some extent all the negative feelings and assumptions I've mentioned here about Financial Core members…or non-members, as some might phrase it. I acknowledge it is legal. I assume some of them felt they had to do it or lose their homes or careers or not send their kids to college. I still think it's a shameful thing to do.
Recently, the presidents of WGA East and West issued a letter to the membership that has caused some outrage. They are identifying those who elected Financial Core status from the WGA and the letter suggests we treat them in a manner that…well, it's better if you read it for yourself.
A debate over the propriety of this letter is raging in many private writers' forums and also over on Nikki Finke's blog. If you read the latter, you'd do well to ignore all the anonymous comments and to not presume that someone is a WGA member just because they say they are.
I am enormously conflicted on all this. I do not think it is as analogous to the blacklisting of the fifties as some do. That shameful episode involved sponsors pressuring employers to punish those who, in the opinion of someone, had the "wrong" political stripes. In this case, it's a factual matter that certain individuals have chosen Financial Core status (presumably because they thought it would enhance their employment opportunities, not diminish them) and there is no reason that information needs to be kept secret. Or should be kept secret.
However, there is also no reason why it has to be disseminated in a way that confers martyrdom or even vaguely resembles what was done to the Dalton Trumbos of the world. The presidents' letter wants to give us the names in question "for future reference." I don't think that's so I can take those people off my Christmas Card list…so what are they suggesting I do with those names?
I wish they had not published this letter. I appreciate being able to know who the Financial Core members are but I am quite capable of deciding on my own how I wish to treat them, how I wish to respond to the choice they have made. I don't know anyone on the list and am unlikely to find myself in proximity with any of them in the near future. If I do, I'll try to understand their actions and then make a decision. I don't need the Guild leadership to nudge me in some direction and I don't think it was wise to create a situation where Financial Core status is getting confused with and rationalized as comparable to the blacklisting of the fifties. And I really, really don't need to be put in a position where I may feel obligated to defend those people.