Here's a short phrase I hear that gets me down:
WGA writers write ...
prime time sitcoms ... live action features ... the overwhelming majority of animated features ... all prime time animation.
The wording bugs me. It's like the Writers Guild hatches writers out, and then the writers write, while the WGA looks on like a proud parent.
I don't think so.
The Writers Guild represents work (live action, animation, video games, news copy) and writers perform that work, becoming WGA members in the process, which is fine.
I have no problem with that, nor the formulation:
Writers who are members of the WGA write ... prime time sitcoms ... live action ... animated features ... prime time animation.
No writer that I've ever heard of is owned by a union or guild. Writers write things, and some of those things are under the jurisdiction of labor organizations.
If a writer composed rhymed couplets for greeting cards under the Rhymed Couplet Guild collective bargaining agreement as a Rhymed Couplet Guild member, and then commenced writing an action screenplay for Warner Bros., would anybody say, "Hey, that Rhymed Couplet Guild writer is doing the new Nick Cage picture!"
Uh, no.
Because there are no Rhymed Couplet Guild writers, just as there are no TAG writers, or WGA writers. There are only writers who perform work under various union/guild contracts, and so become members of various unions and/or guilds by virtue of the work they do.
Maybe the above is a small distinction, but it's a distinction that I believe to be important.
As a Wise Old Union Rep once said to a roomful of other union reps: "Workers follow the work, they don't follow unions."
Posts
34 comments:
*starts timing how long it's going to take for "Screw the WGA" anon comments to appear*
The phrase is used even more commonly with "SAG actors". It's just being used as short for "actors who are members of SAG", just like WGA writers is used as short for "writers who are members of the WGA". Who wants to say "writers who are members of the WGA" every time? Any copywriter would immediately change that to "WGA writer". I think you're getting riled up over nothing.
Furthermore, the focus on WGA, as if they're the only ones to employ that usage, ironically falls into the same category of giving an inaccurate picture of the situation, which is exactly what you're complaining about. I'm totally on your side when you discuss management vs. worker issues. It irks me when you spend time on things that divide workers.
Steve...what prompted your post? Something happen?
If writers identify themselves as WGA writers, or the WGA says "these shows use 'WGA writers' that just means writers covered under a WGA contract. If a Rhymed Couplet Writer goes to Nick to write a cartoon, you can call him a TAG writer because that's what he's going to have to become before he gets his first paycheck...remember?
So go ahead and wave your hand and say "Nickelodeon Cartoons are written by TAG writers," if you want.
The challenge here for you and TAG is to acknowledge and deal with the fact that these "WGA writers" refer to themselves that way, and often with some pride. The identification, clearly carries some cachet, justified or not. The leaders and decision makers in TAG need to find ways to engender in writers covered under the "TAG umbrella" with the same sense of pride.
What does it mean that all the artists and writers at Nick are now "TAG Writers" and "TAG Artists"? It means they're covered under an IA contract...but it should mean more, right?
The real question is, what are you and
The WGA's mission is to divide labor in animation.
http://www.awn.com/wga/
Note the separative language. We all know the reality of production is far from this overly-simplistic dogma.
At the very least, TAG attempts to unite people working on animation productions.
23 min.
The WGA's mission is to divide labor in animation.
Right. And here I thought it was to get better deals for writers. The WGA says the exact same thing with live-action and nobody takes it to devalue the director and actors. Writing is generally the thing that is devalued in Hollywood, and that's the context of that statement.
At the very least, TAG attempts to unite people working on animation productions.
And by the constant comments on this board by *TAG* artists who despise *TAG* writers, they're doing an excellent job.
I remember ads that were placed in Animation Magazine in the 90's that basically stated that If you weren't using Local 839 artists, then basically your productions would be inferior.
At the time I wasn't 839, and I fealt insulted, especially since the requirement to be a member was to get hired by a studio - and we know how easy that is.
At the time, I fealt that it was arrogant to state that only guild artists have the talent to produce anything of merit, especially when those members weren't guild artists before getting hired by a union shop, yet seemingly signing the rep card made them more talented.
I guess now I interpret it as propaganda, such as this WGA statement, as to promote the idea that their union represents the best in the business, which we would hope our union would do for us, after all.
yes Tira, poor, poor writers...how much more suffering do they have to withstand?
R.
There's a subtle distinction Steve is making that I think most of the commenters are missing. We recently had a friendly lunch with the top dogs at the WGA, at which the statement was made (talking about the animation-writing topic du jour), "These are WGA writers, and they deserve a WGA contract." To which we both answered along the lines that such a statement implies that these writers are somehow created by the WGA and branded by the WGA, and that once the have this brand they rightfully should never do anything but write on WGA-covered shows.
Steve and I happen to think this is not only an inaccurate way to look at things, but that it sets up unrealistic expectations. Should writers who at some point have worked under the WGA contract, and at other times written advertising, political speeches, TAG-covered animation, non-union documentaries and indie films, and stage productions be conveniently labeled "WGA writers"? Because that's the situation for the vast majority of "WGA writers" -- writing under WGA contracts makes up a minority of their writing career, and even when it doesn't, the fact of their WGA membership doesn't entitle them to automatic WGA representation (though I wish it did, as long as it worked the same way for TAG).
As Steve says, they're WGA writers when they working under the WGA contract. They remain WGA members when they're not (assuming they've paid their initiation and signed the relevant docs), but they aren't "WGA writers" when they're not on a WGA show. And ones prior union membership isn't what determines ones union representation in the future. We may wish it were otherwise, but it ain't.
I'm glad you're giving more context to Steve's post, Kevin, but I don't believe I nor most of the other commentors missed that distinction. We're simply saying "So what?" It's a statement of pride, as both hoopcooper and Bob Harper discuss. If it helps writers get better deals then great. I think
a much worse thought process is the one displayed much too often on this board -- that who cares about writers issues just as long as the artists get employed.
If artists ever stopped a production to get a better deal for themselves, I as a writer would feel the loss of my paycheck, but my sympathies would still lie with the artists. I understand that that's what has to happen sometimes in this corporate-owned world. I never see that sympathy in reverse by anyone on this board. It's more like just fire the lot of them for all I care, just as long as we keep those artists employed another few weeks.
When you say "It's a statement of pride" you're revealing you missed Steve's point. His complaint is not that writers are proud of holding a WGA card, his point is that it doesn't help get better deals, it only muddies the waters.
We get the deals we have the leverage to get. Labels don't accomplish a thing. Organizing via press release has never worked. There is far too little understanding of how labor organizations function in Hollywood, and the sloganeering spreads ignorance and makes things worse. That's the point of Steve's post.
what prompted your post? Something happen?
I get tired of the "all prime time animation is WGA" mantra, because it's come up recently, and because it's untrue.
I had the opportunity a little while ago to speak to the WGA about it and make my feelings known.
I've told the WGA that, to the extent possible (and sometimes it's not possible), we'll get out of the way when they're working to rep animation writers at some company or other, but there are times when dust-ups will occur.
Because we haven't ceded any animation jurisdiction.
At the very least, TAG attempts to unite people working on animation productions.
And by the constant comments on this board by *TAG* artists who despise *TAG* writers, they're doing an excellent job.
Couple of points. This is an un-moderated web log operated by two officers of the Animation Guild. But it isn't an "official" Animation Guild site.
I'm not thrilled that various anonymous trolls dump on animation writers, but there it is. When comments are wide open, they're wide open.
I think that four elected TAG board members are animation writers speaks more to how the membership feels about the issue than does snarky, mainly anonymous commenters.
Okay, I have a hypothetical.
The WGA organizing a joint does not stop TAG coming in as well to organize the artists, right? Why can't TAG and WGA have a better relationship so that you coordinate on organizing -- WGA organizes the writers while TAG organizes the artists? At the same time even. I know in the past, WGA wasn't interested in animation writers, but if they are now, would that even be a possibility?
From my perspective as a worker, my concern is the best result for the worker, not the best result for any particular labor organization. That's inhibited by the labor laws in place, but the result I want is still the best result for the worker given those laws. If WGA has a better contract for writers, I want WGA to get those writers contracts instead of TAG; if SAG has a better contract for actors, I want SAG to get those acting contracts instead of AFTRA. I as a worker expect the labor organizations to do their best to work cooperatively to obtain the best results for workers given the laws, and not to be so protective of turf.
I know Kevin has argued (and probably with merit) that ceding writers would leave them unrepresented at all in many cases, but in my hypothetical arrangement the division would already be agreed upon by WGA and TAG from the start.
Or is there a law that prevents TAG and WGA from doing this?
I think a much worse thought process is the one displayed much too often on this board -- that who cares about writers issues just as long as the artists get employed.
Commenters post what they post, anon.
TAG has bettered compensation and benefits for animation writers in the last three contracts, and bettered them in excess of what other classifications received.
Now, writers can make the argument (and do) that the contract was weak to begin with, so it doesn't count.
But the way it works is, a contract negotiator deals with (and starts from) the contract that exists, not the contract that he fantasizes in his mind.
The WGA has hated, loathed the DVD formula that's been in its c.b.a. the past twenty-three years. But even after multiple WGA strikes, the same DVD formula is still there.
Now, why is that?
Because it's damn difficult, sometimes close to impossible, to pry bad things out of a union contract. And it takes massive amounts of focus, ingenuity and energy to keep more bad things from getting in, especially in this ferocious corporatist age.
I know this sounds a bit like a whine, but I mean it as a statement of fact. Every union negotiator wants to get a better deal. Patric Verrone does. I do. But you end up, more times than not, with the possible, not the wish-list.
Steve, I'm 100% percent behind you on what you just wrote. It's not a whine, everything you said just there is spot on, and I don't hold you accountable for that. But that wasn't what I was referring to. The next paragragh was what I was really talking about there. I know animators are being mistreated in the industry, but I would be so behind them if they went on strike or stopped production or whatever, even at the cost of my paycheck. The feeling I get here for SDSU is almost wanting them to lose or get fired or anything, just as long as the animators can get back to work.
I as a worker expect the labor organizations to do their best to work cooperatively to obtain the best results for workers given the laws, and not to be so protective of turf.
A fine ideal, but it doesn't happen much.
TAG has tried, in years gone by, to work co-operatively with other unions. It doesn't always work out super well. And I'm not talking here about TAG cooperating with the WGAw, but TAG cooperating with other IA unions.
Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't.
The idea of TAG stepping aside and ceding animation writers to the WGA has been tossed around for a decade. I won't go into the long history (my fingers would get tired) and I won't detail the legal and bureaucratic hurdles (same reason).
Here's the short answer: almost no unions give up jurisdictions voluntarily.
Ted Elliot wrote on The Artful Writer that if a group of writers formed a union that got better contracts than the WGA, does anybody think the WGA would quietly fold its tent and go along with the new dynamic?
He didn't answer his own question, but in case anybody misses his point, the answer is:
Hell no.
To boringly reiterate, unions sometimes lose jurisdiction. Very seldom do they walk away from jurisdiction.
I should probably add that I was mostly lumping in the other posters on that point, so for thinking I'm singly you out, I apologize.
The feeling I get here for SDSU is almost wanting them to lose or get fired or anything, just as long as the animators can get back to work.
It ain't coming from me.
And I can't control what anonymous commenters say.
Here's my position: IF Sony and the writers reach a deal where the WGA reps the writers and TAG reps the artists, then that's the way it is.
Sony most likely won't do that because the IA has threatened litigation (see above: "unions don't voluntarily give up jurisdiction.")
Sony also probably won't do that because there is a long-standing 839 contract in place.
It looks like -- from what I know -- the show will go forward with the writers under 839 jurisdiction.
My biggest wish is that the show is made one way or the other, so that artists and writers have work.
But it's out of my hands.
What about more of an ad-hoc: "We're about to organize X. You in or out?" It's not a ceding in its entirety, because if the other party says "We're out" then you go ahead and organize everyone at X.
Or is that still just a pipe dream? I know you mentioned in the Artful Writer that you would be putting yourself out of a job, but I don't think that's a particularly strong argument in the bigger scheme of things. Plus I'm sure you'd land somewhere just fine.
I'm sure you're right, by the way, that human nature is human nature and even labor organizations will act like organizations. But sometimes I guess I hope for a little more idealism mixed in there from the Labor side. :-)
Forget all this jurisdictional garbage. The line between writers and artists in animation is always going to end up blurry...making it hard as hell to divide the guys into different unions.
Here's the point, I think...to quote Steve H. from an earlier post.
"Ted Elliot wrote on The Artful Writer that if a group of writers formed a union that got better contracts than the WGA, does anybody think the WGA would quietly fold its tent and go along with the new dynamic?"
No, they wouldn't. And clearly, in the opinion of a lot of writers, TAG has not become that alternative union. My question is, why not? That's the real issue here...if everyone's talking about throwing their weight behind a different union, what are we doing to keep them where they are...except getting in their face and telling them they've got no choice?
Tell me what it means to be a TAG writer...and tell me why I'm proud and excited about being one. And if you can't, let's see what we can do to make that happen. That's all I'm asking.
Tell me what it means to be a TAG writer...and tell me why I'm proud and excited about being one. And if you can't, let's see what we can do to make that happen. That's all I'm asking.
But that discussion has been had here a million times. It will be pointed out that the leverage isn't there. That improvements have slowly and consistently been made. And that TAG representation is better than no representation.
How does everyone get past that stalemate and focus on the "what we can do to make that happen" part?
Is it possible to better align writer goals and artist goals? For example, writer "creation" issues are not that different from artists creating the look of a new character. They created something new and deserve a stake in it. If the writer goal and artist goal in a negotiation can be better aligned, then everyone would be behind the same issues.
And how is leverage gained in general, or are we just screwed and that's the way it is?
Anon...
With you 100 percent. We unite the writers and the artists, stop bickering and start figuring out how to get the things we all want as the creative force in cartoons.
We make this stuff together, we should find ways to negotiate the same way.
We're only screwed if it turns out we aren't a true "guild" (brother/sisterhood of skilled workers) but an small part of a larger union to which we have to answer.
Can TAG strike if IA tells them not to? A question, I guess, for Steve.
Can TAG strike if IA tells them not to?
No.
Strike authorization comes from the IATSE.
I know you [Steve Hulett] mentioned in the Artful Writer that you would be putting yourself out of a job [if you were to cede writer's jursdiction], but I don't think that's a particularly strong argument in the bigger scheme of things. Plus I'm sure you'd land somewhere just fine.
You're right. It's not a strong argument.
The strong arguments are:
1) The IATSE has the power of determining jurisdiction, not its local unions (of which TAG is one).
So, for me to say "great, we'll divide up the pie, and TAG will cede jurisdiction in this area," could be overruled by the IA as they were throwing my butt out the door.
2) The companies have a say.
With ongoing contracts, they would simply say: "Nothing changes," and nothing would change. There would have to be a decertification by all employees in the unit, and then the WGAw would have to try to organize the now non-represented writers.
Oh, and the organizing part? Companies can tie up unions for years with appeals to the NLRB and litigation. It's been done to TAG, it's been done to the WGA.
3) I already cooperate in limited ways. I have at different time stood clear of WGA organizing of animation writers. Years ago, WB told us that we didn't have jurisdiction over a show called "Baby Blues." After doing research, I (reluctantly) agreed. Six months later, the WGA organized the show. Warners called me in frantic haste and said "Okay, you've got jurisdiction now! Sign these papers!"
I said, "Uh, no. You don't change your story to whatever's convenient. TAG isn't your prophylactic. Sorry."
And the WGA, as I remember, secured a contract.
TAG still wants the jurisdiction if it can get it. But where one union has what's called "a showing of interest," and another doesn't, it's a no-brainer. You stand quietly and let events play out. The union that has the leverage to achieve a contract prevails.
But now to the weak argument: I have no intention on falling on my sword, because from my POV it would do no good.
The IATSE would still claim the jurisdiction, my successor would enforce jurisdiction, and life would continue as before.
Believe it or not, I had this almost identical discussion with Brian Walton (then executive director of the WGAw) in the room in which I'm now typing.
Had to have been ten or more years ago. How time flies.
What about more of an ad-hoc: "We're about to organize X. You in or out?" It's not a ceding in its entirety, because if the other party says "We're out" then you go ahead and organize everyone at X.
You realize how organizing works, right? A union gets rep cards from the workers, and when that union has rep cards from the majority of workers at that studio, they can bargain with the company to represent those workers under a union contract.
If everyone but a certain job class at a studio signs rep cards, then that union is going to engage in collective bargaining for every classification that signed, and has no say about the job classification that didn't sign. But if every job classification is involved in signing rep cards, then labor law says the union is obligated to bargain for ALL the employees (which is what those employees indicated they wanted when they signed the rep cards).
So to some specifics. TAG gets rep cards from every group, including writers, and is about to approach the studio to negotiate. Can TAG then call in the WGA to take over representing the writers? Of course not.
Now imagine that TAG has rep cards from everyone except the writers at that studio. What can TAG do to deliver those writers to the WGA? Nothing, except maybe give the WGA organizers a heads up about the situation.
In either case, there's not a whole hell of a lot one union can do for the other. As Steve has written about, in the past he and I did meet with WGA organizers to discuss cooperation, and we shared information about a few studios that both unions had found hard nuts to crack.
Ultimately it came to nothing. I will point out that it wasn't TAG's decision to cease cooperating.
The SDSU situation has been officially resolved. From Nikki Finke:
"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."
Here's my position: IF Sony and the writers reach a deal where the WGA reps the writers and TAG reps the artists, then that's the way it is.
Sony most likely won't do that because the IA has threatened litigation (see above: "unions don't voluntarily give up jurisdiction.")
So why is Nikki Finke saying the IA litigation threat is/was horseshit? Does she not know the facts or is she nakedly advocating for the WGA and lying?
I'm not questioning your take on the situation so much as wondering if the biggest journalistic voice on this dispute is playing fast and loose with the facts.
Nikki has been the first to report this, and had the best access to both the WGA and key writers, but she has also published gross inaccuracies in virtually every piece she's done on this story. Her laughing off the IA's willingness and standing to file a suit in this case is, well, Nikki being Nikki.
why is Nikki Finke saying the IA litigation threat is/was horseshit?
Nikki knows all. The rest of us just sell newspapers in her neighborhood.
Okay, a semi-serious answer: There's pressure among the majors ex-Fox to not cave to the WGA on animation. The IA's threat of litigation is a real one, but that isn't the biggest concern for Sony. The IA can make life miserable for Sony in other areas if it feels crossed, and probably (I'm guessing) Sony doesn't want to test those waters.
Truth is, I'm not privy to Sony's reasons on why it went the direction it did. I can only speculate.
I have a question about organizing.
Over at Shadow Animation (formerly Shadowmachine Films) in near-downtown Los Angeles, they write and produce Seth Green's stop-motion animated Robot Chicken. So far it's been Adult Swim's most successful original show, and as far as I can tell is non-union, except for the Screen Actors Guild. Without knowing how the writers and designers/animators feel at that studio, how much leverage would a studio like that have to bring in a union for its writers or animators? Are these lower budget houses tougher to organize?
... how much leverage would a studio like [Shadow Animation] have to bring in a union
Employees would have to be behind the effort, otherwise a union's got nuttin.
1) You need Rep Cards.
2) You need a certain level of militancy. Studio's usually wail and moan about "not having the money."
But that mostly crap in this corporatist age. If a show pulls numbers and a congolmerate wants it, they'll cough up the cash to pay for it. That's certainly been my experience over eighteen years).
Of course, no company -- large or small -- wants to pay more than it has to.
That's interesting to know. I sometimes wonder how much leverage the employees at these low budget operations have. Often there's not as much care taken into the visuals of the final product because it's done on the cheap, so anyone with rep cards could probably be swept out the door of a studio like Titmouse in Hollywood. Klasky-Csupo proved that they would rather their ship sink non-union than ever sign a TAG contract. Rough Draft Studios is still non-union to the best of my knowledge.
And while the WGA can gripe about IATSE/TAG holding animation writers in its stable, there's still animated shows in Los Angeles that use non-union writers. Some of which have become quite the success. However, the WGA hasn't taken much action to organize them. Off the top of my head, I can name the following shows are produced in Los Angeles and are non-union in writing, and animation:
-Robot Chicken (Shadow Animation)
-Moral Orel (Shadow Animation)
-Metalocalypse (Titmouse)
-The Mr. Men Show (Renegade Animation)
-The Drinky Crow Show (Mirari Films) <- Eric Kaplan, who often only writes for WGA shows, runs this.
-Code Monkeys (Monkey Wrangler Productions) <-- LA writing, might be animated elsewhere.
-South Park (South Park Studios) <-- Good luck with this one. You'd have to tie and gag Trey Parker to organize any part of it.
I'm sure I'm missing plenty here.
There are also foreign productions, such as Robotboy or Storm Hawks, which use Los Angeles writers for whatever reason. I have no clue how their employment works.
One your missing is Mike Young Productions, which does Jakers and a few other kiddie shows.
Post a Comment