Writers Strike

[Lunan]

I believe the old simpsons modo when it comes to BSG, it will go on until it become unprofitable. Might not be nice but on the upside of a possible writer strike is that we could see BSG move to NBC to help cover the lose of other show. Granted I have no other basic for this other than wishful thinking and a the hope for more people to see this show

ok now, i have seen a few people talk about a writer strike being "extremly" likly to happen soon

what are the issues?
why would this happen?
what are they trying to gain?
etc? etc? etc?

[Jan]

This post of JMS's gives some insight:

On May 9, 2:48 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Are you receiving any of the revenue from sales of B5 on iTunes? Is WB
> actually sharing? This will determine whether I buy the series online
> or just rip the episodes from my DVD's (Legal issues aside).


Not a gripe, just an answer...as writer, creator and EP I have never
received anything from the DVD sales, Itunes, AOL, bittorrent,
soundtracks or any other form of video distribution on B5.

This is one of the reasons why there's almost certainly going to be a
writer's strike this year.

jms

Here's an article with a surface overview.

Jan

[Dr Maturin]

Let'em sit at home and hire fresh people who won't whine about that crap. Simple.

[frulad]

Yeah! How dare they want to be compensated for their work! The nerve!

[Lunan]

This post of JMS's gives some insight:



Here's an article with a surface overview.

Jan

thanks jan, but that article still doesn't tell me whats going on.

ok comp for being forced to use products in thier scripts i can understand that. comp for the sale of their work in other media then just tv. i can understand that. i guess the contention is that in previous contracts the writers are only being compensated for thier 1. writing, and 2 for residuals from repeats and syndication?

i would think one of the major things would be to recive X percent of all sales in any media?
i'm still a bit confused can someone put it a little better?

[Dr Maturin]

I don't think they're doing the work for free.

[WorkerCaste]

I don't think they're doing the work for free.

Of course they're not working for free. The real question is whether they're being fairly compensated for their work. That's what the negotiations are all about. It's hardly whining when a group bound to group negotiations has grievances when it comes time to renew a contract. They don't believe they are being fairly compensated. Each side will make their case and their demands. In the end, both sides will probably feel as though they were treated unfairly. It's the nature of compensation. It's unfortuante that we may suffer some in the process, but there you go.

[Jan]

I don't think they're doing the work for free.

No, but they're also not doing 'work for hire'. If that were the case, then you'd be correct, that they shouldn't ask for more from work already paid for.

What's under discussion is residuals which are a form of deferred compensation. The writer (or actor etc) gambles along with the studio that the show will be successful and accepts a lesser sum in anticipation of the studio being able to re-sell the show as re-runs or, as is now the case, to online or wireless outlets. Every time the studio is able to do that, they and the writers/actors/etc. get payments. If the studio doesn't manage to resell it, all the writer (etc) gets is the original payment.

What seems to be a major bone of contention is that the studios are now reselling shows and repackaging them and the writer isn't getting anything at all from that.

That's hardly the only thing but I'm sure it's a major one.

Jan

[Dr Maturin]

It's unfortuante that we may suffer some in the process, but there you go.

And here lies the big problem in "group" negotiations. A big "fuck you" goes out to athletes, actors, writers and anybody else who screws over their fan base because they made $2,000,000 instead of $2,800,000. It should be dealt with on a case by case basis. I was pissed that baseball players went on strike in the 90s. I understand their complaint, but you don't throw a hissy fit and piss the fans off. And the fans were pissed as baseball is only now recovering from that debacle. Unfortunately, TV viewers will continue to watch no matter what, so the haughty will not be taught a lesson. And these days they don't have to watch re-runs as a network can throw together another lame reality show.

[Jan]

What other leverage do you suggest, LiM? The whole point of unions is leverage and the last resort is a strike. In general, if the points under negotiation are fair, the public (fans) are supportive. Or should be.

It's all very well to say "It should be dealt with on a case by case basis. " but the point is that numbers have power. One writer, even a Joss Whedon or (if he wrote for TV) Stephen King, can't apply the kind of pressure that the entire writing community can.

It's not about getting more for the writers making a gazillion bucks, it's about getting more for the writers who only sell a few scripts per year or have a long dry spell between getting a staff writing job. The residuals they get are what enables them to keep writing.

Jan

[Radhil]

It should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

I agree with that in principle, massively. And on the baseball stint, I think you're right.

The truth though is that there's only X number of studios out there (unless writers want to work for Bollywood, maybe?) and the vast majority screw all creators any which way they can, from contract to creative accounting. Actors can get negotiation leverage based on how many cameras follow them around. Writers can't.

And this isn't about some dried up pinch hitter earning another million. It's about distributors promising a fair slice of their success, then playing by a 1970s definition of "fair". In spite of my distaste for unions, that's something I can get behind.

[WorkerCaste]

No doubt about it -- collective bargaining has its downside. That was the point I was trying to make. It has a downside for the studios -- their production can be damaged if it goes on long enough. It has a downside for the writers -- some could possibly strike better deals and some very prosperous writers may lose significant income during a strike. It also has a downside for us -- schedules are potentially interrupted and we miss out on some of our entertainment. It also has an upside all around, too. Studios get out of negotiating every single detail thousands of times over. Writers beginning in the business have a fighting chance to make it. The writers also don't have to negotiate every last detail. As fans, I think there are advantages for us, too. If the compensation is fair, we get good product. If it's unfair, either the creative folks won't stay in the game, or the other way around studios will shut down productions.

All things considered, I think the writers are in the least attractive position though. Worst cases: I'm less entertained; the giant corporations behind the studios see less profits; the writer has to move to a different profession or lower their standard of living. I have more sympathy for writers, actors, etc. than the professional athletes, too. I don't think there are two many writers involved here that are looking at the difference between $2,000,000 and $2,800,000.

[David Panzer]

Well, back in '94 during the Baseball Strike, I don't recall a ball player on ESPN saying "I can't live on $6 million a year."

During the '98 NBA Lockout, I remember a basketball player saying that, though the money amount could be wrong. As a result, I've not watched an NBA game for the past 9 years.

As for the upcoming writer's strike, if the strike is the only way that the writers can get the studios to negotiate, then so be it. It'll be a shitty situation for everyone, but the writers aren't asking for 9 million dollars from the studios. Just a little percentage of the profit every time the program they worked on is sold- such as to syndication, DVD, paid download services such as iTunes, Xbox's Live Arcade, and the like.

[AaronB]

Well, back in '94 during the Baseball Strike, I don't recall a ball player on ESPN saying "I can't live on $6 million a year."

During the '98 NBA Lockout, I remember a basketball player saying that, though the money amount could be wrong. As a result, I've not watched an NBA game for the past 9 years.

As for the upcoming writer's strike, if the strike is the only way that the writers can get the studios to negotiate, then so be it. It'll be a shitty situation for everyone, but the writers aren't asking for 9 million dollars from the studios. Just a little percentage of the profit every time the program they worked on is sold- such as to syndication, DVD, paid download services such as iTunes, Xbox's Live Arcade, and the like.

You're thinking of Latrell Spreewell, although it wasn't during the lockout. He said that during negotiations with the Minnesota Timberwolves.

[Lunan]

can someone tell me how the residuals work at this moment, and what the writers want from the negotiations?

do they get zero all around, do they get some from some thngs and not others (say from vhs but not dvd)
i would swear they got some from syndication. do tell please