A Net Full of Jello said:

---

"Him" is a girl.

"A Net Full of Jello" - say it fast.

---

aTmAg said:

---

Quote:

---

What these guilds are negotiating/setting are the absolute bare minimums for certain work.

---

According to whom?

---

A Net Full of Jello said:

---

"Him" is a girl.

"A Net Full of Jello" - say it fast.

---

Sea Speed said:

---

I've been trying to figure out that user name reference for years.

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

I've been trying to figure out that user name reference for years.

---

I feel like a dumb and now am even more impressed with that username.

---

A Net Full of Jello said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Quote:

---

What these guilds are negotiating/setting are the absolute bare minimums for certain work.

---

According to whom?

---

Facts. Reality. Contracts. Decades of precedent. Take your pick (the answer is all of the above). What the guilds are negotiating is the minimum amount the studios must pay for various drafts, jobs, deliverables, etc. They negotiate nothing else, in terms of caps or monetary requirements.

---

I don't think anyone thinks they are trying to negotiate for caps. That would be stupid and not at all in their best interest. However, I think many believe that the "minimum" they are insisting on is likely significantly more than what many are deserving of. Those who are really good at their job probably deserve that and more, but the ones who aren't good just don't. If they did deserve it, the studio would pay it to keep them around. If the studio isn't willing to pay that price, it is because they think they can get someone just as good at a lower price or want someone better for the higher price.

I don't know what else to say to this other than this has been address multiple times here, and in countless articles, interviews, and podcasts that you are free to read and listen to. By your own admission, a number of you are saying things like this simply based on hunches, feelings, and generalizations of unions, and not because you've looked into what the numbers actually are, how they compare, etc. I don't mean that in a condescending manner, either, it's just a fact that you haven't analyzed the numbers yourselves, in this particular instance. Because the minimums being negotiated simply aren't "significantly more than what many are deserving of." They're extremely practical figures that have been analyzed to death, shown how they break down weekly/monthly/yearly compared and contrasted to other jobs, what people are making now, etc. And the facts show that they are wages that will finally allow writers to work and exist again in Los Angeles (and New York), where they have to live in order to do their jobs, and nothing more. Again, the overwhelming majority of writers and actors aren't getting remotely rich here (most of them aren't even making anywhere close to six figures), nor does the nature of the business allow for the kind of laziness some of you are ascribing to them. Like many other industries, it's a highly, highly competitive field, where you have to hustle and bust your ass nonstop just to make the cut/team, and then once you do make a writing staff, or land a role, it's a whole other level of competition just to keep your job or continue to land new ones, move up the rung, etc.

That's the problem with so many labor negotiations. People should be paid what they are worth and the market will decide that. When the unions get involved and demand that you must pay people at least $X, then that means the ones who suck are going to get that. The ones who are better want more than that and EVERYONE thinks they are better than the ones who suck. Price keeps going up and management/employers say "you aren't worth that." Then they strike again and demand that the minimum go up. That is what has happened in every single union. They always want more and they always think they are worth more than what the market says. And then, even if they do get it, the ones who are great are hosed. There is only so much money to go around and if the crappy ones are getting paid more than they should, that is less money to pay the ones who are good.

I'm sorry, but this simply isn't true here. Because the ones who suck are naturally weeded out by their lack of skill. Again, every last writing/acting job is so incredibly competitive, with sometimes hundreds of people vying for the same few writing spots on staffs or roles in casts. Where there's simply no room or opportunity for people to be lazy and sit back, hardly do any work, and collect paychecks. It's not all that dissimilar to, say, the NFL or NBA in terms of the limited number of spots that are available, and how many people are vying for those spots comparatively. Yet everyone assumes that most professional athletes are working their asses off, because if they don't there's a thousand guys waiting in line to take their spots. It's really no different when it comes to writing/acting professionally, except most writers/actors are making far, far less.

---

Legal Custodian said:

---

TCTTS,

I'm curious on the inner workings for hiring of writers by studios for tv shows and movies if you don't mind me asking. And I apologize in advance if these are dumb questions.

Do the studios get rights to something/get pitched an idea and then say "Let's move forward, we need X amount of writers for this." Then they call up the WGA for a list of candidates with certain qualifications they are looking for? And select from that pool of candidates? Or is it normally the team of directors/producers/creators have certain writers in mind and just fill in the writers room through the unions.

It's more the latter. For TV, the first person hired is the showrunner, who is almost always the one who has the idea for the series, wrote the pilot script, etc. Then yes, once the show is greenlit, that showrunner will interview a number of writers for his or her writing staff. Often they'll have a writer or two already in mind, whom they've worked with before, but then the rest of the writing staff will be filled with a mix of veterans, up-and-comers, etc. For those spots, the showrunner, their assistant, and whoever else will read through dozens and dozens of scripts, based on various recommendations, to then whittle the pile down to interview candidates, and then in-person/Zoom interviews will of course often be what seals the deal or not.

As for the number of writers on any given staff, until very recently it used to depend (and still does in certain instances) on the number of episodes per season. But then Big Tech blew all that up, and now demands far fewer writers write far more scripts, which simply isn't sustainable and leads to a worse overall product. This is a main point of contention the WGA is now fighting for - staff minimums based on the number of episodes per season. Basically, they're wanting to contractually obligate what used to be common practice, but wasn't on paper, because everyone and their dogs knew that forcing fewer writers to write more scripts wasn't a recipe for success. Big Tech didn't give a sh*t, though, and now here we are. Personally, I think the WGA is asking for a few too many writers per season/episodes, but then again that's also the point, seeing as they know they'll eventually settle/compromise on a lower number with the studios.

For instance, for construction companies that work in union states that's what some companies do. They get with whatever union and say we need 3 forklift operators and they get sent 3 forklift operators for whatever rate that is already negotiated through the collective bargaining. It's beneficial to the construction companies in that regard just cause it's an easy way to bid work as you know your expected wage costs and they don't have to maintain a bloated workforce when there is less work. Not to mention recruiting costs.

Showrunners/producers/directors don't really work with/go to the WGA in that manner. The WGA is mainly to help ensure certain base wages, settle credit disputes, etc. Not to help serve up candidates for jobs or anything like that. That's mainly the role agents play, and then everything else is done between the studios and the creatives.

Just curious regarding the whole hiring process and how writers get added to shows/movies. Thanks.

---

TCTTS said:

---

Claude! said:

---

Can we go back to arguing whether Drew Barrymore is a scab or not?

---

Technically, she's a scab. If she's writing any words whatsoever that will then later be spoken or read from cue cards, on air, that are otherwise usually written by WGA members, she's scabbing.

That said, to criticize the unions, since people say I never do, I think they're being WAY too militant about these particular instances, and WAY too overdramatic on the impact they think Barrymore and Maher will have in somehow prolonging the strikes by returning to work.

---

aTmAg said:

---

MBAR said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nobody said otherwise. The free market doesn't keep people from making sub-optimal decisions. People have every right to be as stupid as they want.

---

The idea that unionizing is a bad personal decision is a tough one to substantiate with data; especially when you expand the scope globally.

And people here have definitely implied that unions are anti ethical to the free market if not outright stated as such.

---

Anytime people act without coercion, they are doing so within the free market. The people here are implying that unions are coercing employers into deals they don't want, and they do have a point. Whether or not it's enough to say it's anti-ethical to free market is not what matters, since unions' detrimental effects to society exist regardless of how we categorize that.

In the short term, unions screw over employers and customers and/or members of their own union. 99% of the time, it's the former. So at BEST, unions are selfishly screwing over everybody else for their own gain. Including future workers who can't get jobs anymore because the unions made their positions unaffordable. Even in the 1% case where the total labor cost was the same as before, workers with low seniority get screwed over by those with high seniority.

In the long term, unions also screw themselves, as they force their employers to be less competitive, unable to expand, and often out of business altogether. That's a big reason American manufacturing has been lost to foreign competitors over the decades. That's a lot of labor (including formerly union labor) that is now out of the job. Hell if it wasn't for government bailouts, even more of our manufacturers would have gone out of business. At least then their union contracts would have been voided and lazy ass union workers replaced.

My employer suffered a strike a few years ago, and a crap ton of positions got replaced by a contractor that we can easily fire. Suddenly you saw a bunch of union morons see the error in their ways.

---

Counterpoint said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

MBAR said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nobody said otherwise. The free market doesn't keep people from making sub-optimal decisions. People have every right to be as stupid as they want.

---

The idea that unionizing is a bad personal decision is a tough one to substantiate with data; especially when you expand the scope globally.

And people here have definitely implied that unions are anti ethical to the free market if not outright stated as such.

---

Anytime people act without coercion, they are doing so within the free market. The people here are implying that unions are coercing employers into deals they don't want, and they do have a point. Whether or not it's enough to say it's anti-ethical to free market is not what matters, since unions' detrimental effects to society exist regardless of how we categorize that.

In the short term, unions screw over employers and customers and/or members of their own union. 99% of the time, it's the former. So at BEST, unions are selfishly screwing over everybody else for their own gain. Including future workers who can't get jobs anymore because the unions made their positions unaffordable. Even in the 1% case where the total labor cost was the same as before, workers with low seniority get screwed over by those with high seniority.

In the long term, unions also screw themselves, as they force their employers to be less competitive, unable to expand, and often out of business altogether. That's a big reason American manufacturing has been lost to foreign competitors over the decades. That's a lot of labor (including formerly union labor) that is now out of the job. Hell if it wasn't for government bailouts, even more of our manufacturers would have gone out of business. At least then their union contracts would have been voided and lazy ass union workers replaced.

My employer suffered a strike a few years ago, and a crap ton of positions got replaced by a contractor that we can easily fire. Suddenly you saw a bunch of union morons see the error in their ways.

---

People on this thread keep typing "anti-ethical". Do y'all mean antithetical or is anti-ethical a word I've just never heard of before?

---

My decision to return to work was made when it seemed nothing was happening and there was no end in sight to this strike. Now that both sides have agreed to go back to the negotiating table I’m going to delay the return of Real Time, for now, and hope they can finally get this…

— Bill Maher (@billmaher) September 18, 2023

TCTTS said:

---

Claude! said:

---

Can we go back to arguing whether Drew Barrymore is a scab or not?

---

Technically, she's a scab. If she's writing any words whatsoever that will then later be spoken or read from cue cards, on air, that are otherwise usually written by WGA members, she's scabbing.

That said, to criticize the unions, since people say I never do, I think they're being WAY too militant about these particular instances, and WAY too overdramatic on the impact they think Barrymore and Maher will have in somehow prolonging the strikes by returning to work.

---