... Let the employment begin!
Kevin beat me to the punch with this, but I post the news anyway:
After five weeks of negotiations, we have accepted employment as writers for Sit Down, Shut Up! under a new contract.
Though the program will be produced under the jurisdiction of IATSE Local 839, The Animation Guild (TAG), we have achieved Writers Guild of America (WGA) parity in key areas such as auditable residuals, new media, script fees, merchandising rights as well as a guarantee that these gains apply not only to ourselves but also to all future writers on the show.
We thank the WGA for its guidance and support during this process. We believe we’ve made a statement to the studios how important the standards of the WGA are to working writers. All animation writing -- television and features -- should be covered by the WGA.
This contract is a compromise: an improvement over the standard TAG terms we were initially offered, but not full WGA coverage. Compromises are never easy nor satisfying, always less comforting than a clear victory. We know that this is part of an ongoing struggle.
Reaching a deal will allow this program to move forward, providing jobs for many writers, animators, actors and production staff. Not every writer originally offered employment on Sit Down, Shut Up! has decided whether to return, and we understand and respect whatever decision they make. We remain hopeful that all animation writing will one day be covered by a WGA contract ...
As we say, negotiations are about leverage and momentum. It appears that nobody came away from this totally satisfied, but I'm happy that the writers made a deal that's acceptable to them. And I'm pleased ... no, delighted ... that a lot of folks are going to have work for a while.
Congratulations to everybody.
Add On: Craig Mazin at Artful Writer has an eloquent take on the SDSU writers, their victory, and the WGA.
Add On Too: Ms. Finke brings us the rest of the story:
After lying to the writers of the Sit Down, Shut Up! primetime animated series that it would be a WGA show, and then watching those same writers stalk off the IATSE toon, Sony offered a sweetened deal -- including payments of as much as $200,000 of additional compensation through a blind script deal -- to convince some of the scribes to come back.
Most of the writers -- including Josh Weinstein, Rich Rinaldi, Aisha Muharrar, Alex Herschlag, Laura Gutin, Dan Fybel, Aaron Ehasz, Michael Colton, and John Aboud -- wound up coming back.
And so it goes.
Posts
36 comments:
Wow, I'm amazed at the viciousness (and ignoranance) of the comments coming from fellow writers over at Deadline Hollywood Daily. The "Dirty Nine"?!? Ugly and uncalled for.
Agreed.
We can go back and forth on IATSE/TAG/WGA whatever until we're blue in the face, but minimums are minimums and you get what you negotiate.
These writers were in the middle of their own post-strike strike... What did they think was going to happen when they let go of their fight for prime time animation?
At the same time, I think TAG has a responsibility now to take what these writers negotiated and use it as a springboard to raise incomes across the board for TAG writers.
This was the last battle of the strike, and even though they weren't trying to, they won a victory for IATSE animation writers.
Will our union do something with that?
Steve,
I hope you'll join the negotiating committee.
Your union needs you at the table.
Are you on the negotiating committee?
Don't you - or any professional negotiator that TAG could hire/bring on board - have decades more experience at it than I do?
I don't know the ins and outs of these things. I don't have the contacts. I don't know the minutia. I know I'm sounding like "unfrozen caveman lawyer" here, but I know my limitations.
Metaphor: There's things I want changed in the country. I don't run for congress - I don't have the brain or the temperament to do anybody any good like that.
So , I petition my representative and hope for change. I'm giving you my opinion of what I think would be great.
That's what a union is for, right? To listen to the members, decide what's fair and worth fighting for, and try to win those battles?
If what I'm tossing out is fair and worth fighting for, I'm sure TAG will do that. And if not, I'm sure TAG will tell me why.
Considering I've been striving to be "reasonable middle" on this stuff, I think it's a fair start point for a conversation.
If you what I'm saying makes sense, and what I'm asking for is reasonable, and the union believes that to be true, you don't need me on the negotiating committee. The idea should be able to stand on the conviction of the group as a whole.
Okay, Steve. I understand. You want these things, but others will have to negotiate them for you.
To answer your question, I chair the negotiating committee. Which I've done since taking the job. It's in the TAG constitution.
And you're giving your opinion about what you think would be great. But before that you wrote:
TAG has a responsibility now to take what these writers negotiated and use it as a springboard to raise incomes across the board for TAG writers.
However, you say uou don't have the temperment to serve on the committee. So I guess you'll urge us on in our efforts from behind the keyboard.
Good to know.
But hey. If you change your mind about serving on the committee, my e-mail is shulett@animationguild.org . Phone # is 818-766-7151.
Nice chatting with you.
And thank you, for showing this offer to join the committee to be exactly what it I thought it was: A game of gotcha.
Do you really want me on the committee? Do you think I'll do good? Or was it simply "Hey, if you think you can do better, YOU do it." I'm guessing, based on the above tone, the latter.
As you know, I tried to run for the exec committee but was told I couldn't run for a technical reason. Didn't complain. Didn't pop on here and moan about it. Still played middle ground. Still discussed stuff from, what I believe, was a kind and centered point of view.
Over the last few months, I've spent a lot of time analyzing the residuals math that TAG uses, and trying to find the good on it. Still played the middle ground.
Now I'm give you my theory that I believe there are people more qualified to negotiate for the membership than me. Negotiators. lawyers. PROFESSIONALS. Whatever.
Knowing, by the way, that if I get a logical, impassioned reason why something can't happen, I would fall on that side of the argument.
And you're taking personal shots at me.
However, you say uou don't have the temperment to serve on the committee. So I guess you'll urge us on in our efforts from behind the keyboard.
Yeah. I will.
Not anonymously. Not confrontational. Kindly, understanding that there was real world constraints on this stuff and trying to get my union's side of it.
That's called SUPPORT, Steve. I didn't realize you only want it when it's unquestioning.
I'll preface this: You know, we've gone back and forth on this stuff cordially for quite some time. This is the first time I can recall you've ever been sh*tty or snotty about when I'm discussing things in the hypothetical.
And I go OUT OF MY WAY to see both sides and not be "Angry Animation writer."
Unions represent. It is not wrong of me to expect my union to represent. it part of what my dues go for. Me, who comes from an "there's good in IATSE, there's good in TAG" point of view.
Way to isolate THAT opinion.
Why do I have to be on a committee to be represented? Why can't I, as a member, ask to be represented by people I hope will do a better job for me than I would do myself?
Isn't that what the union is for?
I notice you didn't answer THAT part of the post, you just took your shot. Uncalled for.
Steve M., let me ask you, who were the key players on the negotiating committee for the WGA? Was it the highly paid outsiders with union experience, or was it the showrunners and big-name writers who committed a huge amount of their personal time and with whom the producers wanted to maintain a good relationship?
Now, Steve Hulett isn't a highly paid outsider (he's a moderately paid insider), but he's still on the neg committee because it's his job. And it's the AMPTP's job to not respond to him. The AMPTP responds when they think the entire union is behind the neg committee, and when they think the key talent in the Guild is pushing hard for change. Once again, as we say often here, the union is not the office staff and it's not the building -- is a couple of thousand united animation professionals.
Ah, the old Steve / Kevin tag team. :)
Steve M., let me ask you, who were the key players on the negotiating committee for the WGA? Was it the highly paid outsiders with union experience, or was it the showrunners and big-name writers who committed a huge amount of their personal time and with whom the producers wanted to maintain a good relationship?
You're using the WGA deal as a template? I dunno if that's super wise.
Outside of that, I don't know.
But I find it a little disingenuous to allude that the only way an idea can be implemented within a union or any organization is if the person or persons talking about it do the implementing.
But you make a good point. And a less finger pointy point than Steve did earlier.
I'll think about what you're saying. At the same time, since you're here, I'll ask you: Does what just happened for animation writers under an IATSE contract give you any power or, at the very least, desire, to fight for some of that with basic cable animation?
Yours, sitting at his keyboard...
- Steve
And thank you, for showing this offer to join the committee to be exactly what it I thought it was: A game of gotcha.
Actually, no. You made a pronouncement as to TAG's "responsibility."
My response, and it was sincere, was to join the negotiating and push your views.
So I made the request, and you immediately backtracked. And guess what? It ticked me off. Because all it says to me is that you're grandstanding about the "responsiblity" thing.
Where I come from, if you're not willing to get down in the arena (as T. Roosevelt so gracefully put it), then you're not really serious. You're just going to sit up in the grandstands and shout down about how it should all be done.
Do you really want me on the committee? Do you think I'll do good?
To your first question, yes. To the second, all I can say is: "I don't know." Maybe it will make a difference, I haven't been there yet.
I.A. local negotiations are what they are. Ask Earl Kress, ask me. Ask any number of artists and writers who have been there before you. Most will tell you there are small victories sprinkled among huge frustrations.
Or was it simply "Hey, if you think you can do better, YOU do it." I'm guessing, based on the above tone, the latter.
Steve, I'm not asking you to carry the whole weight of the piano. I'm not asking you to take over for anybody else. I'm not telling you to be the point man. I'm asking you to participate. But that, apparently, is too much for you.
You really wonder why I suddenly got snotty? (I prefer to think of it as lightly sarcastic, but I'm okay with whatever label you care to paste on it. Sh*tty, snotty, I'll wear either badge.) I got bent out of shape because you came on and made a pronouncement about what TAG should do. Publically. You have every right to do it, and I'm fine with that. But when I then invite you to join the committee, and you respond with "hey, I'm no good at that stuff ..." and beg off, it touches a nerve. Because I think you have an obligation as a union member to back with action that thing you declare publically that the union should do, especially when an invitation to do so is extended.
As you know, I tried to run for the exec committee but was told I couldn't run for a technical reason. Didn't complain. Didn't pop on here and moan about it.
You couldn't run because the TAG constitution said you weren't eligible. Nothing to do with anybody not wanting you to run. Nothing to do with a conspiracy. There's nothing to complain about. The ratified rules are the ratified rules.
Still played middle ground. Still discussed stuff from, what I believe, was a kind and centered point of view.
Steve, one man's "kind and centered" is somebody else's "wild and unreasonable." (and no, I'm not saying anything you've put is wild and unreasonable). You can say whatever you like here. The joint is unmoderated. If your comment (anybody's comment) is way off the charts, it probably gets taken down sooner or later. But it'll be up for a while.
This is the first time I can recall you've ever been sh*tty or snotty about when I'm discussing things in the hypothetical.
Uh, you weren't being hypothetical. You wrote:
TAG has a responsibility now to take what these writers negotiated and use it as a springboard to raise incomes across the board for TAG writers.
Maybe I need to brush up on my high school English, but that sounds like a flat, declarative sentence to me.
And I have no trouble with the sentence. But when you make a pronouncement and then decline to back it up with any action, how seriously am I supposed to take it? Or you?
Why do I have to be on a committee to be represented?
Because you're an active member, with publically voiced positions. And there's room for you on the committee.
Why can't I, as a member, ask to be represented by people I hope will do a better job for me than I would do myself?
You can. But when you're out there in front telling other members and the wider world the way things ought to be, I think you have a moral obligation to help push them in that direction.
But that's me. I have this strange notion that the game rules can only get better if the players put something into it.
Let's go back to the top of this post. It's about the SDSU writers. Let's suppose those writers had declined to put any energy or time in to support what they claimed they wanted. What would their results have been?
I'm thinking not anything close to what they ended up with.
Isn't that what the union is for?
The union is everybody in it. The union is YOU. And it's only as successful as its members make it.
I notice you didn't answer THAT part of the post, you just took your shot. Uncalled for.
I took my shot for the reasons stated above. You want to make pronouncements about the way things should be, back them up with action. Because action is the only way people know you're serious, and not just posturing.
Thank you for taking me to the woodshed.
By the way - EVERY TAG member has opinions about what TAG should and shouldn't do. Some of them are diametrically opposed to what I think.
Apparently, I'm one of a small handful of morons that think it's smart to voice them and sign my name, and we see how that's all playing out.
Duly noted.
I hate to get in the middle of this particular fight, but I did want to say:
At the same time, I think TAG has a responsibility now to take what these writers negotiated and use it as a springboard to raise incomes across the board for TAG writers.
Hallelujah and Amen to that, brother.
And Steve, you *should* join the negotiating committee. All unions have professionals there to help the union members with the legal stuff (lawyers and staff and so forth), but ultimately, it's a very good thing to do. Get involved in your union. If you think you have some good ideas, then go for it.
I say that as someone who has served my union for 8 years now...been beaten up and smacked around in public by people who have disagreed with me...and I STILL think it's worth it. :)
A valiant effort, Marmel. But as 8% of the union, we are as a small gnat buzzing around the TAG negotiating team's ears. Mr. Hulett always talks about how we don't have leverage, and he's right. We don't. With him.
I and the writers I work with would be willing to discuss taking a more aggressive stance with you if there is one. We found the above conversation extremely concerning.
You know who I am -- I wrote you privately this a.m.
You're the guy in Africa who needs my help on a large money transfer?
Hey - big public spat or not, I had no choice. The joke was just sitting there.
Steve, I also agree that this communication with Steve H. should not have went down at all the way it did, and I don't want to make excuses, but since people are human there are multiple possible reasons good or bad that cause people to overreact, misread, misunderstand, etc.
But regardless, even if he were a jerk through and through (which I don't believe is at all the case), ultimately Kevin is right and Craig Mazin is right. I think you can do some good. And joining the committee doesn't mean you need to be an expert on things you're not an expert on. That's expertise that other people on the team will have. You can bring the expertise and respect that you have, and that's important.
Look, your involvement may end up not resulting in anything at all, but at least you'll have given it a good shot.
Thank you for taking me to the woodshed.
I don't consider it woodshedding. I consider it a frank airing of positions.
By the way - EVERY TAG member has opinions about what TAG should and shouldn't do. Some of them are diametrically opposed to what I think.
And you're a TAG member who aired his opinions/position with his name attached. And I did what I thought good democrats (small d) are supposed to do. I invited you to the party where you could possibly make a difference.
And you declined.
Apparently, I'm one of a small handful of morons that think it's smart to voice them and sign my name, and we see how that's all playing out.
I would invite some of the other folks with strong opinions if they were members and I knew who the hell they were. But I don't.
You, I do.
Prior to this gig, I wrote features and episodic television. I'm not a board artist or viz development artist hurling snark anonymously.
You presume that I'm just ducky with the status quo; believe it or not you're wrong. I worked a good span of time as part of the abused 8%, but over 18 years I've learned how this particular labor organization works, and trimmed my sails accordingly.
Do I like it? Not particularly. Do I work with it? As well as I can.
You presume that I was scamming you about joining the negotiating committee, but I wasn't. And Craig Mazin's right.
To anybody out there who thinks TAG has lousy leverage because of Steve Hulett, I'm completely wasting my time, because you really aren't willing to understand how this union stuff works. To those who might be open minded, I'll give another try.
Steve M. wrote: Does what just happened for animation writers under an IATSE contract give you any power or, at the very least, desire, to fight for some of that with basic cable animation?
First, the "desire" part. Please, give it a freaking rest. I know the TAG contract isn't what you want, but having put in a huge amount of my own time, all uncompensated, and having watched the sincere and substantial efforts by others, I get sick and tired of people coming along and thinking they're the first to have any desire to make things better, or that TAG doesn't give a damn about writers, and never has. Compare the TAG deal for writers from 20 years ago to the deal now. Compare the deal 10 years ago to the current one. Frankly, it's little off-handed comments like that that speak volumes, and which make me want to say "why bother?"
Now, to the rest of your question. Let's analyze what just happened. A prominent, critically acclaimed, very 'hot' live-action sitcom writer just wandered into animation land, fought for, and won a one-off sweet deal for himself and a handful of writers on a prime-time show that has already been picked up and which absolutely had to be produced or the studio in question would have been embarrassed and worse.
Basically, it was a perfect storm, with excellent results for those writers. However, if we change ANY of the elements of that perfect storm, what might have been the result? Let's do a thought experiment:
What might have happened if the show hadn't already been given a network commitment for 13 shows? Think Sony would have buckled without the clock ticking? Let's say it were a show pitched by some not-so-famous animation writers, writers that multiple networks weren't dying to get in bed with. Let's say it wasn't a high-stakes prime-time show, but was instead a daytime cable show. Let's say it wasn't a deal for a single show, but was a deal that had to work for EVERY signator studio, on EVERY show any of those studios produced.
What would the results have been then? Seriously, think about it. Because when it comes to the CBA, not a single one of those perfect storm elements will be in place.
Let me give some similar situations, with real-world examples. About a dozen years ago, when feature animation studios were battling to the death over top talent, there were animators and directors suddenly getting $10k, $20, even $25K. Per week. Yes, per week, and that was part of long-term contracts. Some of that talent was also getting $400-$750K signing bonuses. And stock options. This was at a time when the TAG minimums for these folks was around $1400/week.
Did this windfall for a select group of animators translate into the minimums at the next CBA going through the roof? It did not.
Let's look outside TAG. When prominent actors suddenly found they could demand, and get, $20 million per picture, as well as points on top of their salaries, did this translate into the minimums for SAG actors going up dramatically?
When Akiva Goldsman got $4 million for a script, did that translate into the WGA minimums suddenly ratcheting up? Now, I don't know, maybe they did, but I don't remember hearing about it.
I know some writers will take this as me being negative, or hating writers, or giving up, and you're welcome to your opinion. But I can tell you, from having sat through two sets of these CBA negotiations, that nobody at Disney or DreamWorks or Cartoon Network or Nick is going to put much weight in what Sony Adelaide was willing to do in this very specific case.
That doesn't mean I'm saying to give up trying to get serious gains. What I'm saying is, this particular deal may not change the landscape much. But there are things that could change the landscape. Things like animation writers and story artists actually talking and developing common goals and strategies, and working very hard to present a unified front to the studios. It requires enormous communication and cooperation, and it requires an honest assessment of what CAN likely be gained, and what's pie in the sky.
From my seat, I can tell you that the term "herding cats" comes to mind frequently, and I personally don't believe Steve H. and I calling for this cooperation and participation will mean much. What it will take, I believe, is some prominent writers and story artists putting aside their differences, talking, meeting, making up agendas, simplifying those agendas, and figuring out how pressure can be put on the studios to pay serious attention and really negotiate for major change.
I know I'll be accused of passing the buck, but Steve H. and me and two or three executive board members can only accomplish so much in a negotiation with the AMPTP. And in 2000 a neg committee of mostly writers attempted to use rhetoric and logic and arguments about 'fairness' to negotiate residuals and bump-ups for writers. They did that for 9 months. It went nowhere. And, at that time, as now, there WERE examples of TAG writers getting residuals and getting payments above the minimums. So the precedent was already there. But simply negotiating for such precedents becoming the standard baseline in the CBA wasn't nearly enough.
These SDSU writers accomplished what they did because they were fully willing to risk their short-term careers. They put it all on the line. The power and weight of the WGA had nothing to do with it. The studio wanted those writers, needed those writers, and dealt with those writers. They had leverage, and used it. Their leverage isn't anyone else's leverage, any more than a star animator's leverage is my leverage.
If writers and story artists are willing to work together, and act together to generate some genuine leverage, maybe some of what writers are looking for could be accomplished. But because Mitch Hurwitz and his hand-picked team got a good deal probably doesn't mean as much as some of you wish it did.
It's troubling that the business rep feels the need to spend his time sniping at a concerned, dues paying member of the union. And yes, writers are only 8%, but we are also some of the highest paid members of the guild. That's why IATSE will never let us go, but it's also why none of us should stand for this from the business rep. This union actively resents us, but doesn't want to lose us. And getting involved doesn't help.
I was there in 2000, and Kevin is right. A huge group of writers put in a lot of time and effort to make things better and got nothing. But dismissing this out of hand is disingenuous, Kebin, and you know it. We (the writers)
never really had the backing of the union. The resentment toward the writers was clear from the get-go, with the then president yelling at us when we voiced our concerns, and the business rep saying he wouldn't help us leave the guild because he'd be risking his job. The head of IATSE came in and wouldn't listen to our concerns either, insulted a veteran writer (and now a union officer), dismissed his (and our) concerns and told him "don't have a heart attack," then basically said he'd never let the writers go.
And now, sadly, after some strides are made with an 839 deal that is (from what I'm hearing) close to a basic WGA deal, the business rep does not want to hear from writers who are hopeful that this could help us - unless those writers are willing to come on board and do Steve H's job for him. What a joke.
Anon 4:56, I totally hear where you're coming from and I'm sure it's from hard-earned bitter experience, but I think it would be a huge mistake to let this devolve into dismissals and recriminations right now, whether deserved or not.
As disheartening as Kevin's e-mail was to hear, I don't believe he was dismissing anything. What I take from it is his assessment that he and his team still needs concrete leverage to back up what we all want and think is fair. In other words, with leverage he can then point to this deal and use it as precedent, but without leverage, the other side will simply make all the excuses in the world of why it isn't a precedent.
The positive that I take is that maybe now we can start getting more concrete at how to start going about getting that leverage. It's by aligning goals with more people within and having this larger group of people willing to risk walking off their job. What I take from Kevin is that with that leverage, then he has a much better shot at turning this SDSU deal into the norm rather than an anomoly. With the leverage, maybe there's a chance to bring up TAG contracts to parity or near parity with WGA, as opposed to us writers only focussing on how to leave TAG altogether to join WGA.
So let's start getting more concrete. Would anyone like to step up and set up some initial meetings that could start to bring more unity and aligning of goals? Kevin and Steve H., is there anything you can do to help get it started and slowly prod it along?
... it's also why none of us should stand for this from the business rep.
Take what from the business rep? That Steve Steve Hulett disliked Steve Marmel's decision about declining a slot on the committee? And wrote a sarcastic reply?
This union actively resents us, but doesn't want to lose us. And getting involved doesn't help.
Actually, I'm ambivalent about losing writers. Always have been. And as I say over and over, it's not up to me, it's up to the IA, yet writers act like I have some big say-so.
I was there in 2000, and Kevin is right. A huge group of writers put in a lot of time and effort to make things better and got nothing.
Not nothing, but no residual structure, which was the major proposal.
And remember what I kept saying in caucus that year: "These things the writers want will be hard to get, but I'm perfectly willing to give it a try." And did, in session after session.
We negotiated without results for nine months. There were no results because the producers knew (and I said to the caucus) that the IATSE was not going to grant strike authorization and, beyond that, the membership was not going to vote in favor of a strike.
We (the writers)
never really had the backing of the union. The resentment toward the writers was clear from the get-go, with the then president yelling at us when we voiced our concerns ...
The then President, Tom Sito, thought the writers were attempting a credit grab. That was also the impression of 110 board artists, attending a meeting on the subject at the union hall.
I attended the meeting, (as did Kevin Koch) and said exactly nothing. Earl Kress asked me to let him chair the proceedings, which I did.
... and the business rep saying he wouldn't help us leave the guild because he'd be risking his job.
Let's clear something up. I kept saying: "I don't have the power to sever writers from the union." I've been saying this for fifteen years.
I told this to Brian Walton in the late nineties. I said this to the 2000 negotiating caucus. I stood in the auditorium of the Beverly Garland Hotel in North Hollywood with a 100 animation writers and listened to Tom Short say HE had the power to let writers go (not me), but that the studios also had a say, and he wasn't going to give up the jurisdiction.
The head of IATSE came in and wouldn't listen to our concerns either, insulted a veteran writer (and now a union officer), dismissed his (and our) concerns and told him "don't have a heart attack," then basically said he'd never let the writers go.
Yes, Tom Short. The concerns of the writers -- who made up the majority of the caucus in 2000 -- were "stop repping the animation writers."
Ton Short said no. Again.
And now, sadly, after some strides are made with an 839 deal that is (from what I'm hearing) close to a basic WGA deal, the business rep does not want to hear from writers who are hopeful that this could help us - unless those writers are willing to come on board and do Steve H's job for him. What a joke.
What a misrepresentation. I've seen the deal and signed it. I'm perfectly willing to listen to writers. (Asking them to participate in the next negotiation constitutes "listening.") I'm perfectly willing to make any proposals the executive board and negotiating committee want. Earl Kress, TAG Vice-President and AWC member has written writers proposals the last two contract cycles and gotten them into the contract. I think he'll be pushing proposals this time. And they'll be on the table.
But I'm not going to be cute about this, and I'll say the same thing now that I said repeatedly in 2000. The IA is the bargaining agent. The IA isn't big on striking. The IA knows the writers constitute 8-10% of TAG membership. And I can't change that.
Which does NOT mean gains are impossible. I've never believed that, never said that. But I've stated multiple times that given the existing dynamics that I can't do anything about, big gains are tough.
Lastly. For the record (again), I neither dislike nor resent animation writers. I was one for thirteen years.
let's start getting more concrete. Would anyone like to step up and set up some initial meetings that could start to bring more unity and aligning of goals? Kevin and Steve H., is there anything you can do to help get it started and slowly prod it along?
Fine. E-mail me at shulett@animationguild.org .
I'll contact TAG Prex Koch and TAG Veep Kress. We'll get some meetings going.
Kevin;
I'm not going to go point for point with your post... mostly because I dont have that kind of energy. I'd rather put that into something else. Like a script. Or a friendship. Or the smile of a child.
But I will respond to this:
"First, the "desire" part. Please, give it a freaking rest I know the TAG contract isn't what you want...
It's not. But then, I have agents and lawyers that negotiate that stuff for me. This isn't about me. I'm fine.
This is about minimums - and what they mean. It's the least you can get, both per week, and in success.
And my belief that "Sit Down / Shut Up" could very well be used to change the definition of certain minimums for writing under an IATSE contract.
...but having put in a huge amount of my own time, all uncompensated, and having watched the sincere and substantial efforts by others, I get sick and tired of people coming along and thinking they're the first to have any desire to make things better, or that TAG doesn't give a damn about writers, and never has"
I can imagine.
Know what I get a little tired of? The instant reaction that I'm point an accusatory finger at the union, or the parsing of words rather than the discussion of ideas.
There's this situational Alzheimer's that happens here, usually when I'm asking a question about how something can be better, and suddenly, the volume goes up.
So, one more time, for the folks at home:
I'M NOT SAYING TAG HAS NO DESIRE TO INCREASE WRITER DEALS.
My use of the word "desire" has to do with the Sit Down Shut Up situation, and how a studio, through an IATSE/TAG Contract, made the deal work for WGA writers.
I desired the new Iphone. I took a shot at getting one. If I didn't get it, it doesn't make me a failure. But I desired it. That's all I was saying above. (By the way, I got it.)
The IATSE deal was based on WGA minimums. Don't you find that to be interesting? Or exciting? Or inspiring? Don't you desire that for your writers? Even in theory?
That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying you guys are back at the headquarters, wolfing down baked lays and playing "Soul Calibur 4." I am assuming there's hard work being done every day.
I'm saying I see this moment as a pivotal moment in time and wanted to spark a discussion.
I'm not your enemy here. I don't take cheap shots at Steve, I don't instantly bitch about the union, I don't think it's all a conspiracy.
Might I humbly suggest to everyone that maybe getting in a room together as opposed to faceless internet miscommunications might provide a better outcome for all on this one? Too often I think we all forget just how easy it is for e-mail and internet discussions to go awry.
Apparently "everybody in a room" is going to happen.
Will there be Punch and Pie?
Dang, you boys have been going at it! I'm sorry I was so busy selling porn on Ebay! But I'm back. The famous anonymous voice of reason.
1) No reasonable union SHOULD give a damn about what 8% of their rank and file want if it doesn't dovetail with the needs of the rest of their workers.
2) So the SDSU deal is better than TAG minimums. Let's go to a meeting and find out what the writers want that the artists want too. Let's find out how to protect ourselves creatively. As a freaking group. Because if artists aren't going to walk off their job for writers...what are the chances that we're going to get a nation full of stagehands to do the same thing?
3) And that's the primary issue to me. Can TAG operate without the approval of IA? IA is a big freaking stick to carry around, even if they're not mobbed up anymore. But if we know what we want, are we going to walk out even if it means Tom Short is going to burn our arms with cigarettes?
4) If we have a meeting where writers tell you what they want, then we're DOA right there. That's an invitation for the other 92% of the Union to rise up and point out that they don't get that either...and deserve it. A Union is supposed to make the workers more powerful...workers who fight among themselves aren't called workers...they're called actors.
Long freaking set-up for one joke, huh?
But seriously...writers are a tiny, specific part of TAG. They get little respect, and as 8% of the union, there's no reason for that to stop. But they're 8% who know how to walk a picket line. The artists might be able to use them to make everyone's life better.
my two cents. Now you can go back to fighting.
Hoopcooper, I think outside of anonymous comments sections of the blog, writers get as much respect as as any other faction in TAG. I say that having spent many years in the business, and none of those years in writer's rooms. And I'll say again that writers are but one 'specific' part of TAG. As are character animators. And sheet timers. And character designers. And modelers. And color stylists. And background painters.
All are specific groups, with both specific and group needs. And if one group is willing and able to get together and decide on some specific contract goals, I really don't think they'll be DOA. I haven't seen any of the 'crabs in a bucket' mentality on the two negotiating committees I've been on. (I have seen is apathy, and I've seen lack of consensus, but I haven't seen one group tearing down another.)
Kevin,
Good to know, I just want make sure the next round is as productive as possible. If there are inequities felt by all TAG members, I suspect they'd get a little more purchase than new demands that benefited only specific members of the group.
I'm not whining about respect, just pointing out that we're more likely to move as a group if we address issues that apply to as many of the group's members as possible, right? Which brings up the real question...at the end of the day, is our right to strike based on authorization by IA?
'cause that would broaden the discussion even further.
Gotta agree with hoopercooper on this. If what the writers want can't be applied to everyone else in the Guild (the majority) then the time shouldn't be wasted on their specific needs. If it can then go at it.
Frankly, Hoopcooper, I think the talk of strike authorization is what's DOA. Especially after the upheaval, and lack of success, by recent strikes, and strike threats, and de facto strikes, and de facto lock outs. TAG's membership has never been particularly strike prone, especially after the ugliness and pointlessness of TAG's last strike in 1983. Now, after all the labor unrest and work stoppages of recent times, I think the ONLY way there'd be the slightest traction within TAG's membership to consider a strike would be if the AMPTP came in and attempted massive roll backs. Nothing short of the AMPTP threatening nuclear war would bring the TAG membership to pushing the red button and engaging in MAD (that's some cold war references for you kiddies).
I know some will find my candor and transparency disappointing or defeatist, but we can't gain anything if we don't understand the framework that we exist within, and strike authorization is a red herring.
And to the last anonymous, our CBA negotiations often include proposals that benefit only certain groups within TAG. It's not wasted effort, and pushing those proposals doesn't mean the non-included groups are being slighted. As we've pointed out, the last two negotiations got some real and specific gains that were unique to writers. We also pushed some proposals that were unique to storyboard artists. We do that stuff all the time, and will continue to do it.
The key is that people in those job classifications need to come forward, and they need to help formulate those proposals, and the negotiating committee needs to believe in those proposals. It's democracy in action, in the same way that our government passes laws that often benefit or apply to only a subset of the population.
So, I like HooperCooper, but I find the view to be shortsighted. Here's why.
For me: This is a discussion of backend, and money in success. It's not about residual checks paid personally to me - I've moved past that.
As I've said, I like the fact that monies that could be paid directly to me get put into a fund that gives more than just me health and pension. I cannot do cartoons without a crew of people like that, I think there's justification for it on a business level and on an ethical level.
And I personally don't give a poop about the minimums - I'll let my "people' negotiate that for me. And for non "create a show / run a show / run a writers room" jobs, TAG is probably all the union that group needs. I can't speak from experience.
What I care about - and what the other 92% of this guild should care about - are the definitions of profit that we all have to fight their way through when creating a show under TAG or IATSE --
-- definitions which are much stronger through the writers guild.
Change that, I think you get a lot of show creators - be they artist or writers - to relax.
And the other 92% should care about that, because I doubt there's an animator working that doesn't dream of creating his or her own show.
All I'm saying is - if you guys want writers to care about artists, it's gotta be the other way around. I try, very hard, to do so (with varied success, I'll admit.)
But for what it's worth, writers are on the front lines of what you'll make if you sell a show as well. And if you do - without writers - then you reap the rewards, not the guy who took your idea and muddied it with text.
All I'm saying.
I'm curious by what you mean by: What I care about - and what the other 92% of this guild should care about - are the definitions of profit that we all have to fight their way through when creating a show under TAG or IATSE --
Do you mean the internal studio 'formulas' for when a show is officially profitable and therefore when they'll actually pay real money to someone who has 'profit particiapation'?
Nope.
I mean "separated rights" which are negotiated into every WGA pilot deal, which work outside of heinous studio math.
Kevin...
I think you've understood Steve perfectly. Every creative member of TAG (and that's everybody) is a potential creator of a show. And that means that every member of the Union has a stake in what Steve described.
The truth is that I know people who don't even bring their projects to American companies. Why should they? You create a show here, you're basically doing nothing more than (possibly) guaranteeing yourself a year of work. Period. You're selling the show outright. So what's the advantage of selling a show to Nick or Disney when I can make oodles more money in Europe? The downside is that Americans don't end up working on the shows, which should be impetus enough for the union to look hard at the deals that TAG members are getting as creators.
I appreciate your candor too on the realistic possibility of considering a walkout under any circumstances. It's too bad you feel that way. And worse that you're probably correct. Worse yet is that you say it so bluntly...how does it help our future negotiations to be clear that whatever we want, we're not going to stop working to get it?
Let's all get together and work on new guidelines for profit participation for creators of shows.
Hooper;
I thought he understood me as well, but I'm giving him benefit of the doubt.
Otherwise, the yelling starts. :)
But you are absolutely right, and I never really even thought of it that way: Is my back end better in Canada? (No jokes).
Then there's more of a win for me if I partner with a someone in Canada, or England than if I create one in the United States...
...that being said, I have only worked on American created shows (regardless of where they were produced) and would prefer motivation to continue to do so.
This is turning into a pretty good discussion.
Damn, I wrote a reply that disappeared. I always forget to double check that they go through.
I'll rewrite the simple version: I actually had no idea what Steve M. was talking about, since to me studio's "definition of profits" and "separated rights" aren't synonyms. So thanks for clarifying.
Might I suggest a useful exercise -- get some writers (and perhaps board artists, character designers, etc.) together and start digesting down the WGA separated rights language to something applicable to the broad landscape of the animation industry.
And remember that these proposals need to be something that the studio labor-relations reps might actually respond to. Things like separated rights (along with residuals) are not mandatory subjects for bargaining -- which means the companies don't even need to respond to proposals on such subjects during negotiations.
We're having a big old discussion at TAG one of these days, right?
I'd like to suggest that some of the dual union card holders bring that along. I'll do the best I can.
When we get close to that confab, I'll try to have those ducks in a row.
Just because I'm not on the negcom, doesn't mean I'm not willing to help out. :)
Post a Comment