Assuming the membership ratifies the Producers' offer — a pretty safe assumption — there will be no Writers Strike this year. But I have received some questions on the topic of WGA strikes. First though, you might want to read this article about what is known about the contents of the deal. Then, let's go to this first question from my pal Pat O'Neill…
In regard to your post about the settlement of the WGA contract…and the upcoming expiration of the SAG-AFTRA contract…have the major guilds and unions in Hollywood ever considered timing their contracts to all expire simultaneously, so that the studios would not be able to argue, say, "Well, the writers just accepted a 15% pay increase with a 5% increase in residuals…why should you actors do any better?"
Well, I should start by noting that your hypothetical numbers are really hypothetical. The Writers would be ecstatic if they ever got a 4% increase in those areas.
The expiration date of a contract is usually X number of years from the date of its commencement and X is usually three. When it isn't, that is the subject of negotiation and the Producers have been known to fight like all get-out if a union wants to move the next negotiation date to a more strategic time in terms of when it would be best to interrupt production. So it ain't that simple to move it and I doubt any union would go to war over that issue.
Even if all the dates were to expire at about the same time, the Producers would just take the position that they would bargain with one guild at a time…and you'd probably be giving them the power to decide the order. So they would tackle them in the sequence that was the best for the studios. I don't see the advantage that the guilds would have of going in quick succession. Management already insists that they can't give us more than they gave the last above-the-line guild.
Perhaps you're thinking that the three guilds could link arms and all threaten to really shut down production if they all don't get what they want. That was a fantasy some espoused back in the eighties when strikes were a bit more volatile than they are these days, but I think a lot of us came to the realization that that would never happen. For one thing, the interests of the unions are not all the same. Sometimes, what we want is exactly what the Directors Guild doesn't want us to get. That makes it real easy for the Producers to pit one guild against another.
More significantly, the unions just ain't gonna sacrifice for each other. If they offer the DGA a good deal, the DGA is gonna grab it, end of story. They're not going to risk losing it or being outta work for months because the actors want more moisturizer on the set or the writers want directors to have their names made smaller in all advertising.
This one is from Phil Rushton…
In light of the possibly-looming writers strike I can't help wondering why the various networks don't simply film unscripted editions of their talk shows: after all, it's my experience that there are plenty of natural raconteurs out there like Stephen Fry who are more than capable of being witty to order without having their words written out beforehand.
I know it's a hopelessly dumb question but I'd sure like to see what would happen – and who knows, maybe viewers would actually get to like it!
They've done that. Carson, Letterman, Leno, O'Brien…they all did shows without writing staffs during past strikes. I don't think anyone was too impressed with what resulted. If great (or even "just as good") shows had resulted, the networks would have figured they could save money and permanently do those shows without writers. That did not happen. And Stephen Fry, brilliant though he may be, is not a guest who causes viewers to tune in.
Last one's from someone who didn't want their name mentioned…
I'm a Screen Actors Guild member and I'd like to know what the Writers' settlement means for us. Does it make a strike more or less likely? I've heard members say this is not a good time for a strike.
Hard to say. I think it makes your initial offer from the AMPTP better and that may make a strike less likely. But a lot of it depends on what demands your union makes that do not flow naturally from the gains in the WGA and DGA deals. In the past, SAG has really gotten hosed in some monetary areas relating to "new media," especially in the area of residuals. They're ridiculously low and that becomes an increasing cause for resentment as production in those areas increases. If SAG opts to demand readjustments there, it could hit some serious brick walls, which is not to say they may not have to, sooner or later.
Also, actors have some issues that are not major concerns for directors and writers, most notably relating to the merchandising of your likenesses and the usage of your likenesses in contexts that may imply endorsement of a product or even a political crusade. I don't know if that kind of thing is going to be a deal-breaker for the forthcoming deal or even get mentioned.
SAG (I should probably say SAG-AFTRA) is an unusual union with its own internal dynamic. It is the union that can immediately shut down production. Management might be able to assume some directing jobs for a time. This is has never been tested because directors don't strike for more than an hour or so about once a century. It takes a while for our loss to be felt when writers walk out…but if the cast of a TV series walks out, it tends to bring things to a halt pretty fast.
Still, of the three above-the-line guilds, it is the one with the highest percentage of members whose primary income comes from other professions. Most directors direct. Most writers write something even if they aren't writing the kinds of things covered by the WGA An awful lot of actors have other professions, in or out of the TV or movie industries. A few years ago, I had some work done on my house by a carpenter who does woodworking full-time…except maybe two or three days a year when someone he knows hires him for a union acting job.
For a time, I was a SAG member because I did a few warm-ups on TV shows for which I was a writer. The next time a SAG contract came up for a vote, I didn't vote because I'd stopped doing warm-ups, didn't want to do any more of them and even if I had, nothing in the deal apart from the cost-of-living increase was going to affect warm-up gigs in any way. And yet, I had the same vote as Alan Alda or Burt Reynolds or some actor working full-time and making millions.
And then you have the fact that that kind of in-demand actor — today, it would be like a Dwayne Johnson or Jennifer Lawrence — isn't particularly affected by the kind of issues that SAG negotiates. Raising minimum fees ain't gonna boost Vin Diesel's take-home pay…and yet the success of a SAG strike depends a lot on having the support of guys like that.
So this is a long "I dunno." I don't follow SAG politics. Lately, I don't follow WGA politics as closely as I once did and probably still should. I can tell you one thing though about those people who are saying "This is not a good time for a strike." Those people never think it's a good time for a strike. Ever. And they do a lot to make them occasionally unavoidable.
