The WGAw got into representing animation writers in 1997, when it signed a deal with Fox-News Corp. for cartoon scribes working in prime time. Since then, there's been a lot of internal guild politics to organize other companies under Guild contracts. We note that various candidates running for officer slots in the upcoming Writers Guild election are talking about it, among them:
Ari B. Rubin, Board Candidate:
... I believe our conflict with IATSE over animation writers is a festering wound and I will work hard to see the rift bridged. Animation writers must receive the WGA protections they deserve. We must also turn our attention to capturing two burgeoning fields: performance capture and video games. ...
Michael Oats Palmer, Board Candidate:
Feature animation writers are covered by the Animation Guild, part of IATSE, a carryover from the era where Uncle Walt and Chuck Jones were marquee names. But as complicated a situation as it is, we must work to make animated features covered by WGA ... Writers are better served by the WGA than IATSE.
John Aboud, Vice President Candidate:
We must therefore expand jurisdiction where possible -- including more coverage of animation, video games and new media -- ensuring our relevance in the future.
The Writers Guild's push for cartoon jurisdiction has been a hot-button issue for at least the last decade and a half, and I don't think there will be any cooling in the foreseeable future. Certainly Patric Verrone has made it a priority in his previous administrations. If he grabs the reins of the WGAw again, it will doubtless remain a priority.
Posts
20 comments:
Oh, wee. More brotherly labor love. Can't wait.
Hi Steve --
I'm a writer who's written lots of cable TV animation, and occasionally get film gigs -- some animated, some live-action. Therefore, I'm one of the many who belongs to both TAG and the WGA.
Can you expand on this issue and give some of the reasons TAG still believes it is the best choice for animation writers? Of course I know one big reason TAG wants to keep us -- a larger membership means more dues, which makes for better benefits/health coverage/etc for the entire union. But on a personal level, writers would get that with either union. What are the reasons TAG is the better choice for animated writers?
Honestly, I'm torn. TAG has been very good to me. But it has always been a bummer to see some of my hours go to one union and some go to another, so I'm not building my pension consistently with either. And as far as script fee minimums and residuals go, I make WAY more on projects that I write for WGA signatories versus TAG studios, even though the work is exactly the same.
Look forward to your thoughts. With the WGA election coming up, I'd like to make an informed decision...
Thanks!
Some Animation Writer
Can we have a membership vote to release the writers from TAG? And let the WGA just rep all writers?
Honestly most of us can't stand them, and most of them hate being associated with our ilk. So let's be done with it and fight for better pay for board artists and directors who have to deal with those crappy scripts.
Labor jurisdiction carved out in hard won collective bargaining agreements with corporations over time to is not up to local membership.
Then let the IATSE vote
Dear Some Animation Writer:
Full disclosure: I was an animation writer for a dozen years before running and securing this gig. (Disney, Filmation, Warner Bros. Animation.)
Through the twists and turns of history, the jurisdiction for animation writing was divvied up the way it (mostly) is now in the 1930s and 1940s. At the time, most writing was done on storyboards, but certainly not all of it. Further, the WGA had (and has) provisions in its MBA that blocked it from repping animation, and here we are.
The IATSE (our mother international) has final say over the jurisdictions of its locals, and the studios also have input. I'm not the guy who makes the determination.
This issue has been hashed around for longer than I've occupied the office of business representative. (The AMPTP and WGAw were fighting about it at the national Labor Relations Board back in 1983.) Writers are like everybody else in animation, they want to make more money (who among us doesn't?) They believe that the WGA would help them in that regard.
I think in many cases that's true, in other cases not. For instance, Patric Verrone story-edited and wrote "Class of 3000" for Cartoon Network a few years back, and he did it under a WGA animation contract. (There was a separate company who had a WGA deal.) I was told by CN management that there were no residuals paid under that particular Writers Guild agreement.
The reality is, the WGA has secured residuals for its Fox Prime Time shows, but hasn't gotten residuals elsehwere. The IA is not predisposed, so far as I know, to giving up the jurisdiction. For writers who swing back and forth between WGA and IA contracts, it's a less-than-ideal situation, but there isn't a lot I can do about it.
The one thing TAG has done is negotiate increased benefits for free-lance writers. By writing two outlines and half-hour scripts, writers can secure health benefits and vest in the Motion Picture Industry's Pension and Health Plan.
Happy to talk to you about this in greater detail at (818) 845-7500.
Thanks for your answer, Steve. Though all that background is interesting for a historical perspective, it still doesn't address which union would better serve animation writers NOW. You didn't really answer my simple question: "What are the reasons TAG is the better choice for animated writers?"
I'm not really asking why YOU think TAG is better for us, but why TAG itself (or IATSE) does.
I was employed at Cartoon Network when Verone was on C3k. I remember it was a special case, because he couldn't "look bad" by taking a non-WGA-signatory gig, so the network put the show under a loan-out company. True, it didn't have residuals. But that's just one of many benefits the WGA gives writers that TAG doesn't.
For example, I was on a show years ago that the WGA believes still owes the writing staff money (without us pointing it out or even knowing), and they've spent over a year pestering the studio to get it.
They also offer protection as far as screen credit -- arbitration and specific percentages determine them, as opposed to the studios deciding.
Really, things get more tricky when it comes to feature animation. First, it's the same pool of writers for live-action and animated movies, many of whom don't realize the major animation studios aren't WGA. Second, there's the issue of what constitutes animation these days, with so many "hybrid" films (mo-cap, CGI main characters, etc.). Why some of these films are under TAG and others under WGA is random at best, determined by antiquated storyboarders-as-screenwriter jobs that don't exist anymore (as you pointed out). The classic example is Rossio & Elliot writing both Shrek and Pirates of the Caribbean -- they did the same thing on both, and both were massive hits, but they made way way way more on Pirates because it was WGA, which gave them residuals, DVD sale money, etc.
Look, I'm just speaking from what I perceive, but I'm honestly interested if there is another side to the argument. Why does TAG/IATSE believe animation writers are better served under their guild? Or do they even believe that? If the only argument is "because we already have them" then I know who to vote for in the upcoming WGA elections... but I'd love to hear a real counterargument.
Thanks again,
Some Animation Writer
"The classic example is Rossio & Elliot writing both Shrek and Pirates of the Caribbean -- they did the same thing on both"
ROFLMAO...they wish! The reason why Shrek was a hit had little to nothing to do with those two hacks. And after seeing how good their writing was on the other Pirate films as well as other films they take credit for I doubt they had much to do with any film being a hit.
Good role models you look up to.
"What are the reasons TAG is the better choice for animated writers?"
This is the wrong question to ask, though I understand why writers pose it this way. The real question to ask is, "What would happen if TAG gave up jurisdiction for writers?" There seems to be the assumption that any writer now covered by TAG would immediately be covered by the WGA instead. There's no evidence that this assumption is true.
First, there's the fact that the WGA contract has specific language prohibiting the coverage of feature animation, and the studios have refused to negotiate that away, even in the face of Verrone's "successful" strike. I recall at the beginning of that strike Verrone made a blood oath to not yield on that point, and yet history tells us what really happened.
And when it comes to cable and daytime TV animation, the studios have shown no hesitation to outsource to non-union animators, and have shown no willingness to pay writers anything more that TAG has been able to negotiate (example of Verrone getting a "WGA deal" that paid a much lower rate than the usual WGA deal, with no residuals). The minute TAG gave up the jurisdiction of TV animation writers would be the day all shows became either board-driven shows or there would be a lot of busy non-union writers.
Remember, there are three things that have to happen for a TAG-covered writing job to become a WGA-covered writing job. One, TAG gives up jurisdiction. Two, the producers agree to that act. Three, the WGA successfully organizes those writers, and gets a WGA contract for them. Even if number one happened, number two never would, and if you judge by the low-hanging fruit the WGA hasn't been able to organize or has organized poorly(games, new media, reality, C3k, etc.), there's no reason to suspect three is very likely, either.
Be careful what you wish for. Getting yourself out of TAG might be more of a nightmare than a dream.
The last commenter is dead right about the false choice being posed by Some Animation Writer. It's great fodder for a theoretical discussion, but in the real world it's a pointless question.
To Anonymous at 5:14 -- I didn't say Rossio & Elliot are my role models. Nor did I comment whether they did a good job or bad. This isn't an discussion of taste. I merely said they "did the same thing on both," as in WRITE A SCRIPT. Of course the Shrek story artists improved that script. But the writers still wrote it, which took the same amount of time and effort as the one they wrote for Pirates. Yet the pay model was totally different.
To Anonymous at 6:19 -- I am a writer, and this issue effects me directly, which is why I'm posing the question from the POV of a writer. I only know from my experience that MANY of the projects I've written on could have been either WGA or TAG, because the studios have signatory companies set up for both instances. I've been paid under both unions at the same studio, depending on the project. But obviously they go the TAG route if it's animation, because it saves them money. My contracts are no longer for the minimums (though they started there when I was a new writer a decade ago, and I was appreciative for them), so I know first hand that union minimums is a non-issue for the studios. They want the product that I'm giving them and are willing to pay fairly. So I don't buy your argument that the producers would never agree to pay WGA amounts. In all likelihood, they would create a special exception rule for cable animation, like they did for C2k, and cable live-action, and independent films budgeted less than $1,200,000, etc. So most cable animation writers wouldn't see more money right away -- but they wouldn't be splitting their pension hours between two unions, and paying dues to two unions.
Plus, I don't buy your argument that studios would just make all their shows board-driven or hire non-union writers. I've put together enough staffs to know that great writers are hard to find, so when you do find them, the studio execs find a way to pay them. Everyone's goal is to make great product (though that doesn't always work out), so they wouldn't be happy with hiring all untested, non-union writers just to save a few bucks -- especially when they already have relationships built with writers working on their shows.
I appreciate the lively debate. Still looking forward to Steve's response...
I only know from my experience that MANY of the projects I've written on could have been either WGA or TAG
If that's the case, why are you asking these questions? If that's the case, why aren't you demanding that the animation you write be covered by the WGA? If good writers are so hard to find, and the studios are so willing to pay whatever it takes to get those writers, and the jobs can often be either WGA or TAG, then why the hell are we having this discussion?
So I don't buy your argument that the producers would never agree to pay WGA amounts. In all likelihood, they would create a special exception rule for cable animation, like they did for C2k, and cable live-action, and independent films budgeted less than $1,200,000, etc.
Again, so why isn't this happening? You act as if ALL animation is controlled by TAG. It's not. There is a lot of non-union animation being written, as well as ALL of games, and yet the WGA has made virtually no progress in those areas. The WGA gives Pixar writers lots of awards, but somehow hasn't seen fit to organize those writers? When you used the Elliot/Rossio Shrek/Pirates example, why didn't you use Michael Arndt instead. Because then it wouldn't be a TAG/WGA comparison, it would be a non-union/WGA comparison, that's why.
If TAG ceased to exist tomorrow, we're supposed to imagine that all the productions that the WGA would suddenly be able to organize in areas where it has never had significant success? I don't buy it, and I think you're fooling yourself, and ignoring ample evidence to the contrary.
Everyone's goal is to make great product (though that doesn't always work out), so they wouldn't be happy with hiring all untested, non-union writers just to save a few bucks -- especially when they already have relationships built with writers working on their shows.
I know some 'tested,' successful animation writers who have turned to non-union writing jobs to make a living. When that's what they needed to do to pay the rent, they did it. I know board artists who had their above-scale rates pushed down again and again, and they took it, to keep in the business. This is the world we live in. Animation budgets have sucked for years. If TAG was out of the picture, and the studios refused to do deals with the WGA, I'd be surprised if the studios found it that hard to get experienced writers to work for them. Those writers might not brag about it, but I bet they'd do it all the same. And the fact is, all their live-action WGA brothers and sisters would look the other way.
On a related note (since you mentioned that Steve's answer would somehow determine how you'll vote in the next WGA election), what do you expect Patrick et al. to do to get more animation under WGA contracts that they haven't already tried? Another strike? More 'direct action?' Continued anti-studio smear campaigns? More botched runs at reality TV editors to piss off the IA? Seriously, I'm trying to figure out the appeal of a WGA president who already threw everything except the kitchen sink at the producers and still failed completely. I too appreciate lively debate, and I seriously would like to hear your answer to this.
Hmmm, I guess SAW doesn't have meaningful answers to my questions. I know it's tough for someone who is pro-WGA to respond to questions about why the WGA hasn't made any headway in animation and games, despite over a decade of bold promises and threats, but I was hoping for something.
I'm not really asking why YOU think TAG is better for us, but why TAG itself (or IATSE) does.
The problem with the question is, it's fine philosophically, but it doesn't address the real-world problem.
The WGA will get some writers residuals. It had the juice to get Fox Prime Time writers residuals under a contract. (My understanding is, they were already getting residuals without one.) As noted above, it hasn't had much success in getting other animation writers residuals, or even a contract.
Like it or not, that's reality. Another reality is, few if any labor organization willingly cede jurisdiction to another labor organization. (If, say, the DGA could get better terms and conditions for writers, would the WGA step aside? I don't think so.)
I can tell you that some top IA officers believe, sincerely, that animation writers are best served under the IA because the IA can get a contract for those writers -- with pension, health, and wage benefits -- and the WGA can't.
Are they right? Wrong? I don't know. I think the question is still up in the air. (As astounding as it seems, I've talked to a few animation writers who prefer working under TAG to the WGA. Go figure.)
But back to the real world: The WGA represents what it manages to organize. Period. I've heard the argument, "Well, if the IA and TAG would just get out of the way, then the Writers Guild could prevail..." Problem is, the IA and TAG won't get out of the way. (And to be fair. the WGA has organized some other prime-time shows: Bob, the Devil and God, Dilbert, Baby Blues to name three. It's had minimal success away from prime time.)
I've been around for a while, and it's my observation that in most (but not all) situations, the WGA hasn't had the leverage to get writers under animation contracts. There's the Fox deal from 1997 ... and those shows I list above ... and then ... what?
But let's get to the nub. The WGA has been unsuccessful in getting the "Hands off animation!" clause out of its own contract, so maybe the WGA is the rightful owner of its victories ... or lack thereof. And so the question of "Which union's best for writers?" is either 1) waiting for a final answer, or 2) pointless.
I lean toward pointless.
I just went to Patric Verrone's 2011 campaign site and read his statement. It's interesting that there is zero mention of animation, except this:
Those of you who know me know that the mantra of my time in Guild leadership has been “Organize, Organize, Organize.” This thinking propelled our elevation of an organizer to be the WGAW’s Executive Director in the remarkable David Young. It expanded our covered workforce with hundreds of writers on primetime animated TV series...
The way I read this, Verrone is giving David Young (and himself by extension) credit for the WGA/Fox Animation deal. Yet wasn't that deal struck in 1998? Verrone didn't become WGA president until 2005, and Young didn't become executive director until 2006. What prime-time animation did Verrone and Young organize that employed hundreds of writers?
Thanks for your response, Steve. The complexity of the issue is starting to become clearer. It seems like the crux of the matter is the disparity between these two ideas:
"Some top IA officers believe, sincerely, that animation writers are best served under the IA because the IA can get a contract for those writers... and the WGA can't."
"[Some WGA folks think] 'Well, if the IA and TAG would just get out of the way, then the Writers Guild could prevail...' Problem is, the IA and TAG won't get out of the way."
I guess it's impossible to know which of those statements is closer to truth without either side budging from their beliefs, so we can find out. The frustrating part, from my perspective, is that two unions who both clearly have good intentions, end up hurting writers like me who work in both live-action and animation. It will take me twice as long to fill my pension hours in either union, and I'm stuck paying two sets of dues.
Anyway. At least I understand the situation a little better now. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
And to Anomymous: I didn't respond to you because of your hostile and accusational tone. I was asking questions to try to better understand, not preaching or telling other people they were wrong. Yet for some reason you decided to turn a discussion into an argument ("why the hell are we having this discussion?"). Some of your points were well taken (the Michael Arndt non-union Pixar example is something I hadn't thought about), but honestly, I wasn't looking for a fight.
SAW, I wasn't looking to fight, just trying to get some clarity. I'm sorry if I was too aggressive. I'll ask again, if many of the jobs you do could be either WGA or TAG, then why aren't you and your fellow writers insisting they be WGA and making this discussion moot?
I've had similar discussions over the years with animation writers, and for over a decade I've heard the mantra that TAG should 'get out of the way.' I think I first saw this addressed in a commentary in Animation Magazine by Jeffrey Scott a good dozen years ago at least. Yet in all that time no one will answer my question why the WGA has been so unsuccessful in organizing all the non-union animation writing that has been going on forever. I have the strong feeling that if TAG also repped people working in games, then the WGA would be saying that it's TAG's fault that they can't organize the games industry.
Finally, among the two quotes you pulled from Hulett's statements, they both ignore the reality that the AMPTP and the studios. What if TAG stopped repping writers? What if the WGA got the 'no-animation clause' out of their contract? There's still be that little matter of negotiating WGA contracts (i.e., with pay scales equal to live action, and with generous residuals). With the WGA's lack of success against the AMPTP for the last 20 years, I'm not sure why you want to leave that part of the equation out of your thought experiment. There are four parts to this dance. The WGA, TAG, the pool of potential writers, and the producers. You seem only focused on one of those players.
Verrone is giving David Young (and himself by extension) credit for the WGA/Fox Animation deal. Yet wasn't that deal struck in 1998?
Most of the animation writing jobs touted in Patric's statement come from the Fox deal, which now encompasses the MacFarlane shows, The Simpsons and several newer Fox prime time shows. (Bob's Burgers, Allen Gregory etc.)
A little misdirection there, methinks.
The frustrating part, from my perspective, is that two unions who both clearly have good intentions, end up hurting writers like me who work in both live-action and animation.
I understand your frustration, but short of working exclusively in one jurisdiction of the other, there is no simple solution. And I don't think one will crop up anytime soon.
As a long-time animation writer, one thing I'll say is that I've found the leadership of TAG to be more open about what TAG offers (and doesn't offer). This thread is a good example of that. Getting the straight dope from the WGA is a challenge, and rhetoric sometimes trumps frankness. We're a contentious and grumpy tribe, and the WGA seems to enjoy fanning the flames instead of admitting to any limitations.
Post a Comment