Now that we're going into the third week of the WGA's job action, time for some clarity.
President Kevin Koch and I have both been on various writers' blogs, correcting some misstatements of facts (yes, IA-TAG writers get pension and health benefits; no, IA-TAG writers don't get prime-time WGA style residuals.)
You know, just pretty much defending The Animation Guild's position.
Sort of what you'd expect officers of The Animation Guild to do.
But it's good to clear a few things up:
TAG has taken no official position on the strike.
I, personally, support it.
I hope the WGA wins, since that's better for the Writers Guild and other entertainment unions. I have doubts that it will, but we'll know which side has prevailed when the picket signs come down and an agreement is ratified.
I oppose the WGA prohibiting writers who hold WGA cards from working under another union's jurisdiction (TAG's, in this case.)
There. Now everyone knows where we stand. And everyone's the richer for it.
Posts
5 comments:
Steve, as a WGA/TAG member, it's nice to have the support.
Thanks,
Bob
As an 839-only member, I guess what I don't get is why our local's position, which is no official position, takes so much work to defend?
Why not just correct the misstatements of fact, instead of bringing in "constructive" criticism of the WGA about who's got more solidarity?
Especially when the AFL-CIO's official position is in support of the WGA.
I'm negotiating with a writer who's primarily WGA about doing a script on an 839 show, and he had been confused by the WGA statement. All I had to say was "No, the WGA can't keep you from working on 839 shows, they had to take it back, and if you don't believe me ask your agent." The problem disappeared.
Why does it take more than one sentence, repeated when people ask, to address one misstatement of fact? Why does our leadership have to snipe at Verrone? Why does our leadership have to quibble that the AFL-CIO's support of the strike isn't the good kind?
If we're really taking no official position, why doesn't our leadership stay quiet?
If we're really taking no official position, why doesn't our leadership stay quiet?
TAG takes no official position because the TAG executive board has passed no motion(s) re the WGA's strike.
But to the other point about "staying quiet." Kevin and I have chosen not to because of repeated misstatements of fact by WGA members.
I'll give you some examples.
Micah Wright -- WGA member -- made a number of falsehoods re Nickelodeon, the WGA and TAG and a lengthy organizing drive of five and a half years ago. (I won't rehash the details here, but it basically came down to: we were scabs and stooges of the studios. Kevin and I refuted the charges on various comment boards.)
Micah Wright accused TAG of undercutting WGA writers on "Father of the Pride", when nothing of the sort happened. (this was on Craig Mazin's "Artful Writer blog.)
Micah, after being confronted with facts by both Kevin and me, backed off his accusations.
There's just no way either of us are going to "stay quiet" about falsehoods. You think we should?
Another reason I don't keep my mouth shut: WGA writers have called TAG offices over a period of weeks under the mistaken impression that they couldn't work under a TAG contract or they'd be disciplined by the WGA.
Now, why is that?
Because the WGA had posted strike rules that said it was a prohibited activity for a WGA writer to begin or conclude contract negotiations for feature animation work, and that any WGA writer performing work on animated features should "consult" with the WGA.
These rules were revised after the WGA was threatened with legal action by the IATSE and the AMPTP. But we still got calls about it after the fact, so I decided to be clear about TAG's position with the press, on this blog, in the comments of other blogs.
Despite all this, I've publically supported the WGA strike, and walked the picket line even though I have minimal skin in the fight. And I'll be walking the line again.
Hope this explains things.
Why does it take more than one sentence, repeated when people ask, to address one misstatement of fact?
Speaking for myself and not Kevin, I find that I have to go into background and context when correcting some misstatement or other. Which makes some of my answers, ahm, windy.
Why does our leadership have to snipe at Verrone?
I don't recall every sniping at Verrone. I don't know him.
All I've ever said is that he worked under a non-residual WGA contract on Class of 3000.
I don't consider that to be sniping. I label it a statement of fact. If I'm wrong, I'll happily retract it.
If Mr. Verrone said of me: "Hulett wrote animated features at Disney under an 839 contract without any WGA style residuals." I wouldn't consider that derogatory. I'd consider it accurate.
Why does our leadership have to quibble that the AFL-CIO's support of the strike isn't the good kind?
I'm not quibbling. I've stated "I think it's great John Sweeney [head of the AFL-CIO] supports the WGA strike." So do I.
"Good kind" doesn't enter into it. All I've said is that the LA County Fed hasn't sanctioned the WGA strike. Not a quibble. Not good or bad. Just a statement of fact.
"Because the WGA had posted strike rules that said it was a prohibited activity for a WGA writer to begin or conclude contract negotiations for feature animation work, and that any WGA writer performing work on animated features should "consult" with the WGA."
Steve, as one of the writers you've helped...again, thanks.
Keep up the great work...even if some are inexplicably annoyed by you hard work. Bob
Post a Comment