---

fig96 said:

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

aTmAg said:

---

That's not the way it works. Why are the current wages no longer enough? It's not because the value of their work has increased (the demand for their work has not increased nor has the supply of writers gone down). It's because the cost of living in California has gone up due to liberal policies (which they ironically support in droves). The equilibrium price is the same, the unions simply want MORE than the equilibrium price. If they didn't, then there would be no reason for a union at all.

---

This illustrates your fundamental misunderstanding of the situation and just throwing "liberal policies" crap at the wall because it sounds good to you.

The current agreements are not enough due to a number of changes in the industry, largely the advent of streaming. Streaming services don't have to report viewership numbers and are using this to severely limit what's paid out to writers (and others) via residuals, often their primary source of income.

An example from the writer of Suits, currently one of the top viewed shows on Netflix:

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

Quote:

---

Lilla told Decider that she "received $12,568.57 in residuals" in 2016 for the season 5 episode "Blowback," which premiered in January of that year. "I imagine it was probably being sold internationally and re-airing on USA," she said in an interview published on Thursday, August 10. "This year, 2023, where Suits has been viewed for billions and billions of hours on Netflix, I received the grand total of $414.26 on that episode."

---

So it's not "liberal policies" but a fundamental shift in the how the industry works that's being used against the people creating the content.

---

aTmAg said:

BS.. People and corporations of ALL industries are leaving California (as well as NY and Illinois) for a reason. Hell, even Hollywood itself is leaving, as more and more projects are filming outside of the state. That has nothing to do with Netflix. That is all about cost of living.

---

So to summarize, here's the fundamental way the industry has changed resulting in writers needing a new agreement, and your response is no I ignore the actual data and believe my own reason. Compelling argument.

(Projects have been filming outside California for quite a while now due largely to subsidies offered by other states as well as Canada. Has very little to do with this situation, but as you've just demonstrated the facts aren't particularly important to you here.)

This.

It's like if you got hired as an account rep for the Widget Company. When you negotiated your commission, your income was tied to the number of Widgets your accounts ordered. Then one day you come into work and are told that the widgets bought by your biggest account, no longer count to your commission, but you still have to give your biggest account the same level of service as before.

Think of the writers like account reps, their biggest accounts are the steaming service. They don't know how many widgets the work they do are generating in terms of sales for the Widget Company and they are no longer compensated for what they agreed to when they started.

You would either find a new job or completely renegotiated how you are compensated. That's what's this is all about.

The distributions model has changed for the writers content. The studio's want to pay them based on the old model.

Regardless of what state you live in, nobody like getting the old switch a roo on their paycheck. Let the free market work, eventually the sides will come to terms.

---

---

+ 9 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

aTmAg said:

---

---

aTmAg said:

---

nai06 said:

---

Henry Ford isn't responsible for the 5 day work week nor the 8 hour work day.

By the time Ford instituted his policy in 1926 there were at least 70 other major manufacturers with a 5 day work week already. The Jewish Sabbath Alliance of America was lobbying for a 5 day work week for both Christians and Jews as early as 1910.

Has far as a 8 hour day goes, hell workers and the labor movement have been pushing for that since the civil war. See the Haymarket Square Riot of 1885.

---

I didn't mean to imply Ford invented the 5 day work week. My point is that he (and others) did it long before unions were involved. The notion that if it wasn't for unions, we would all be working 7 day weeks for 12 hours is simply false. Unions try to take credit for that to justify themselves. It's a load of crap. Competition drove employers to do it as trained workers became harder to replace. It's the free market at work.

Quote:

---

Writers and actors have decided that the current wages they make are no longer enough. The going rate is no longer enough to secure the services of a writer or actor. Studios can't pay X because no one is willing to work for that amount. So the equilibrium is shifting.

---

That's not the way it works. Why are the current wages no longer enough? It's not because the value of their work has increased (the demand for their work has not increased nor has the supply of writers gone down). It's because the cost of living in California has gone up due to liberal policies (which they ironically support in droves). The equilibrium price is the same, the unions simply want MORE than the equilibrium price. If they didn't, then there would be no reason for a union at all.

---

nai06 said:

I keep coming back to this last part.


Not trying not be disrespectful, but this is a very simplistic view of economics. It's the kind of thing that is taught in regular HS econ (I should know, I used to teach it). In actual practice, it's never as simple as the textbook.

---

You being a former HS econ teacher explains a lot. My HS econ teacher didn't have a clue either.

Your view isn't more "nuanced", it's simply wrong. If the writers were really worth what the unions demanded, then the studios wouldn't have willingly endured a 5 month strike over it. They would have simply paid it and moved on.

Quote:

---

In this case, the supply of writers has decreased. The number of writers willing to take what the studio was offering went down. In other words, the value of their labor went up so the equilibrium shifts up as well.

---

Talk about simplistic view. There are fewer secretaries today than 10 years ago. That doesn't mean the remaining ones have become more valuable and are earning more. Again.. equilibrium price for writers was clearly below what the unions demanded. The reason some writers were no longer willing to take what the studio offered was because their value was not worth the ridiculously high cost of living in California. Not because they were more valuable and therefore able to go write scripts for more money elsewhere. They simply got out of the business altogether, like many secretaries.

Quote:

---

It feels like you are looking at this situation strictly from the lens of producers (studios). They alone don't set the value of labor.

---

Where did I say that? I said EQUILIBRIUM PRICE which is set by both sides. If I thought the studios alone set the value, then I think the salaries should be $0. If the writers alone set it, it would be a gazillion dollars.

---

nai06 said:

I'm curious what your econ credentials are. You seem to be pretty confident in your views.

I am by no means an economist. All I've done is teach regular high school econ, AP Microeconomics, and AP Macroeconomics.

---

aTmAg said:

The appeal to authority fallacy is especially fallacious in economics, since there are econ PhDs that disagree nearly 100% with other econ PhDs. Paul Krugman for example, who has a Nobel Prize and is a complete idiot disagrees vehemently with Milton Friedman who also has a Nobel Prize and is generally considered one of greatest economist of the 20th century. So how about addressibg the content of post rather than pretend teaching a HS course makes you an expert?

BTW, in the paraphrased words of the late great Walter Williams: "Macroeconomics is nonsense." There is a reason Keynesians have been wrong on virtually every prediction they have made over the past 50 years. Their fundamentals are completely wrong. Teaching macroeconomics is like teaching alchemy. But politics keeps it alive despite its obvious failures.

---

tomtomdrumdrum said:

So no credentials then?

"Credentials are worthless!" screams the man with no credentials.

---

aTmAg said:

I didn't say all credentials are worthless. I'm not going to get surgery from somebody unless they have credentials. But credentials in economics is worthless.

Hell, Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen have ivy league PhDs in economics and Powell has a Doctorate in Law. Yet I did a better job of predicting the result of their policies than they did.

---

I didn't say you said all credentials are worthless. But please keep deflecting from the question.

---

---

+ 3 more quotes (click to expand)

fig96 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

That's not the way it works. Why are the current wages no longer enough? It's not because the value of their work has increased (the demand for their work has not increased nor has the supply of writers gone down). It's because the cost of living in California has gone up due to liberal policies (which they ironically support in droves). The equilibrium price is the same, the unions simply want MORE than the equilibrium price. If they didn't, then there would be no reason for a union at all.

---

This illustrates your fundamental misunderstanding of the situation and just throwing "liberal policies" crap at the wall because it sounds good to you.

The current agreements are not enough due to a number of changes in the industry, largely the advent of streaming. Streaming services don't have to report viewership numbers and are using this to severely limit what's paid out to writers (and others) via residuals, often their primary source of income.

An example from the writer of Suits, currently one of the top viewed shows on Netflix:

Quote:

---

Lilla told Decider that she "received $12,568.57 in residuals" in 2016 for the season 5 episode "Blowback," which premiered in January of that year. "I imagine it was probably being sold internationally and re-airing on USA," she said in an interview published on Thursday, August 10. "This year, 2023, where Suits has been viewed for billions and billions of hours on Netflix, I received the grand total of $414.26 on that episode."

---

So it's not "liberal policies" but a fundamental shift in the how the industry works that's being used against the people creating the content.

---

aTmAg said:

BS.. People and corporations of ALL industries are leaving California (as well as NY and Illinois) for a reason. Hell, even Hollywood itself is leaving, as more and more projects are filming outside of the state. That has nothing to do with Netflix. That is all about cost of living.

---

fig96 said:

So to summarize, here's the fundamental way the industry has changed resulting in writers needing a new agreement, and your response is no I ignore the actual data and believe my own reason. Compelling argument.

(Projects have been filming outside California for quite a while now due largely to subsidies offered by other states as well as Canada. Has very little to do with this situation, but as you've just demonstrated the facts aren't particularly important to you here.)

---

Did you look at the actual data and facts? Writers on old cable/network shows don't get residuals out of this deal. Only new streaming does.

So guess what? If writers were not unionized and hired individually like most of the rest of the world, they could negotiate that as part of their compensation for new jobs. So why not just do that? Because they know damn well that they wouldn't get a bloated salary if they didn't selfishly extort the studios through a strike.

And tax breaks (for taxes that should never have been owed in the first place) is not a subsidy. hth

---

---

+ 10 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

aTmAg said:

---

---

aTmAg said:

---

nai06 said:

---

Henry Ford isn't responsible for the 5 day work week nor the 8 hour work day.

By the time Ford instituted his policy in 1926 there were at least 70 other major manufacturers with a 5 day work week already. The Jewish Sabbath Alliance of America was lobbying for a 5 day work week for both Christians and Jews as early as 1910.

Has far as a 8 hour day goes, hell workers and the labor movement have been pushing for that since the civil war. See the Haymarket Square Riot of 1885.

---

I didn't mean to imply Ford invented the 5 day work week. My point is that he (and others) did it long before unions were involved. The notion that if it wasn't for unions, we would all be working 7 day weeks for 12 hours is simply false. Unions try to take credit for that to justify themselves. It's a load of crap. Competition drove employers to do it as trained workers became harder to replace. It's the free market at work.

Quote:

---

Writers and actors have decided that the current wages they make are no longer enough. The going rate is no longer enough to secure the services of a writer or actor. Studios can't pay X because no one is willing to work for that amount. So the equilibrium is shifting.

---

That's not the way it works. Why are the current wages no longer enough? It's not because the value of their work has increased (the demand for their work has not increased nor has the supply of writers gone down). It's because the cost of living in California has gone up due to liberal policies (which they ironically support in droves). The equilibrium price is the same, the unions simply want MORE than the equilibrium price. If they didn't, then there would be no reason for a union at all.

---

nai06 said:

I keep coming back to this last part.


Not trying not be disrespectful, but this is a very simplistic view of economics. It's the kind of thing that is taught in regular HS econ (I should know, I used to teach it). In actual practice, it's never as simple as the textbook.

---

You being a former HS econ teacher explains a lot. My HS econ teacher didn't have a clue either.

Your view isn't more "nuanced", it's simply wrong. If the writers were really worth what the unions demanded, then the studios wouldn't have willingly endured a 5 month strike over it. They would have simply paid it and moved on.

Quote:

---

In this case, the supply of writers has decreased. The number of writers willing to take what the studio was offering went down. In other words, the value of their labor went up so the equilibrium shifts up as well.

---

Talk about simplistic view. There are fewer secretaries today than 10 years ago. That doesn't mean the remaining ones have become more valuable and are earning more. Again.. equilibrium price for writers was clearly below what the unions demanded. The reason some writers were no longer willing to take what the studio offered was because their value was not worth the ridiculously high cost of living in California. Not because they were more valuable and therefore able to go write scripts for more money elsewhere. They simply got out of the business altogether, like many secretaries.

Quote:

---

It feels like you are looking at this situation strictly from the lens of producers (studios). They alone don't set the value of labor.

---

Where did I say that? I said EQUILIBRIUM PRICE which is set by both sides. If I thought the studios alone set the value, then I think the salaries should be $0. If the writers alone set it, it would be a gazillion dollars.

---

nai06 said:

I'm curious what your econ credentials are. You seem to be pretty confident in your views.

I am by no means an economist. All I've done is teach regular high school econ, AP Microeconomics, and AP Macroeconomics.

---

aTmAg said:

The appeal to authority fallacy is especially fallacious in economics, since there are econ PhDs that disagree nearly 100% with other econ PhDs. Paul Krugman for example, who has a Nobel Prize and is a complete idiot disagrees vehemently with Milton Friedman who also has a Nobel Prize and is generally considered one of greatest economist of the 20th century. So how about addressibg the content of post rather than pretend teaching a HS course makes you an expert?

BTW, in the paraphrased words of the late great Walter Williams: "Macroeconomics is nonsense." There is a reason Keynesians have been wrong on virtually every prediction they have made over the past 50 years. Their fundamentals are completely wrong. Teaching macroeconomics is like teaching alchemy. But politics keeps it alive despite its obvious failures.

---

tomtomdrumdrum said:

So no credentials then?

"Credentials are worthless!" screams the man with no credentials.

---

aTmAg said:

I didn't say all credentials are worthless. I'm not going to get surgery from somebody unless they have credentials. But credentials in economics is worthless.

Hell, Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen have ivy league PhDs in economics and Powell has a Doctorate in Law. Yet I did a better job of predicting the result of their policies than they did.

---

tomtomdrumdrum said:

I didn't say you said all credentials are worthless. But please keep deflecting from the question.

---

Reading legit economic books for 25 years is all the credentials one needs to be more qualified than the likes of Paul Krugman (and certainly 99.9% of people posting on this board). I've been posting here since 2001. My prediction track record speaks for itself and is available for everybody to see.

Summary of the WGA terms: https://www.wgacontract2023.org/the-campaign/summary-of-the-2023-wga-mba

Can we shoot this thread in the face now?

---

---

+ 4 more quotes (click to expand)

---

fig96 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

That's not the way it works. Why are the current wages no longer enough? It's not because the value of their work has increased (the demand for their work has not increased nor has the supply of writers gone down). It's because the cost of living in California has gone up due to liberal policies (which they ironically support in droves). The equilibrium price is the same, the unions simply want MORE than the equilibrium price. If they didn't, then there would be no reason for a union at all.

---

This illustrates your fundamental misunderstanding of the situation and just throwing "liberal policies" crap at the wall because it sounds good to you.

The current agreements are not enough due to a number of changes in the industry, largely the advent of streaming. Streaming services don't have to report viewership numbers and are using this to severely limit what's paid out to writers (and others) via residuals, often their primary source of income.

An example from the writer of Suits, currently one of the top viewed shows on Netflix:

Quote:

---

Lilla told Decider that she "received $12,568.57 in residuals" in 2016 for the season 5 episode "Blowback," which premiered in January of that year. "I imagine it was probably being sold internationally and re-airing on USA," she said in an interview published on Thursday, August 10. "This year, 2023, where Suits has been viewed for billions and billions of hours on Netflix, I received the grand total of $414.26 on that episode."

---

So it's not "liberal policies" but a fundamental shift in the how the industry works that's being used against the people creating the content.

---

aTmAg said:

BS.. People and corporations of ALL industries are leaving California (as well as NY and Illinois) for a reason. Hell, even Hollywood itself is leaving, as more and more projects are filming outside of the state. That has nothing to do with Netflix. That is all about cost of living.

---

fig96 said:

So to summarize, here's the fundamental way the industry has changed resulting in writers needing a new agreement, and your response is no I ignore the actual data and believe my own reason. Compelling argument.

(Projects have been filming outside California for quite a while now due largely to subsidies offered by other states as well as Canada. Has very little to do with this situation, but as you've just demonstrated the facts aren't particularly important to you here.)

---

aTmAg said:

Did you look at the actual data and facts? Writers on old cable/network shows don't get residuals out of this deal. Only new streaming does.

So guess what? If writers were not unionized and hired individually like most of the rest of the world, they could negotiate that as part of their compensation for new jobs. So why not just do that? Because they know damn well that they wouldn't get a bloated salary if they didn't selfishly extort the studios through a strike.

And tax breaks (for taxes that should never have been owed in the first place) is not a subsidy. hth

---

There is no stipulation for residuals on those series because the rules already exist, they get paid for them now. The problem was that they were getting paid nothing because there was no transparency into the numbers.

You know what the new deal does do? Require streamers to disclose their viewership numbers to the writers.

Please continue enlightening us with your expertise.

---

---

+ 5 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

fig96 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

That's not the way it works. Why are the current wages no longer enough? It's not because the value of their work has increased (the demand for their work has not increased nor has the supply of writers gone down). It's because the cost of living in California has gone up due to liberal policies (which they ironically support in droves). The equilibrium price is the same, the unions simply want MORE than the equilibrium price. If they didn't, then there would be no reason for a union at all.

---

This illustrates your fundamental misunderstanding of the situation and just throwing "liberal policies" crap at the wall because it sounds good to you.

The current agreements are not enough due to a number of changes in the industry, largely the advent of streaming. Streaming services don't have to report viewership numbers and are using this to severely limit what's paid out to writers (and others) via residuals, often their primary source of income.

An example from the writer of Suits, currently one of the top viewed shows on Netflix:

Quote:

---

Lilla told Decider that she "received $12,568.57 in residuals" in 2016 for the season 5 episode "Blowback," which premiered in January of that year. "I imagine it was probably being sold internationally and re-airing on USA," she said in an interview published on Thursday, August 10. "This year, 2023, where Suits has been viewed for billions and billions of hours on Netflix, I received the grand total of $414.26 on that episode."

---

So it's not "liberal policies" but a fundamental shift in the how the industry works that's being used against the people creating the content.

---

aTmAg said:

BS.. People and corporations of ALL industries are leaving California (as well as NY and Illinois) for a reason. Hell, even Hollywood itself is leaving, as more and more projects are filming outside of the state. That has nothing to do with Netflix. That is all about cost of living.

---

fig96 said:

So to summarize, here's the fundamental way the industry has changed resulting in writers needing a new agreement, and your response is no I ignore the actual data and believe my own reason. Compelling argument.

(Projects have been filming outside California for quite a while now due largely to subsidies offered by other states as well as Canada. Has very little to do with this situation, but as you've just demonstrated the facts aren't particularly important to you here.)

---

aTmAg said:

Did you look at the actual data and facts? Writers on old cable/network shows don't get residuals out of this deal. Only new streaming does.

So guess what? If writers were not unionized and hired individually like most of the rest of the world, they could negotiate that as part of their compensation for new jobs. So why not just do that? Because they know damn well that they wouldn't get a bloated salary if they didn't selfishly extort the studios through a strike.

And tax breaks (for taxes that should never have been owed in the first place) is not a subsidy. hth

---

fig96 said:

There is no stipulation for residuals on those series because the rules already exist, they get paid for them now. The problem was that they were getting paid nothing because there was no transparency into the numbers.

You know what the new deal does do? Require streamers to disclose their viewership numbers to the writers.

Please continue enlightening us with your expertise.

---

Not according to this:

Quote:

---

Original writers on older cable and network TV projects that have subsequently aired on streamers will remain uncompensated by the newer platforms.
An example of this is the legal drama Suits, which has been a hit on Netflix internationally, after having initially premiered on the USA Network.
This part of the agreement could lead to a scramble from streamers to acquire other cable and network shows, as their anticipated success on such platforms would not lead to payouts to the original writers.

---

I'm very curious about the "remain uncompensated" language there as those writers are currently being compensated, just not proportional to the viewership.

Either way, the fact that streamers have to report their numbers is a game changer and at the root of this whole debacle. They're making it easier for writers, and especially young writers breaking in, to earn a living (which despite your fantasies is not a generally high paying profession).

Edit: I'd also be interested to learn whether their studio contracts guarantee them some kind of compensation for a show being syndicated/streamed. While they may not be getting paid under this agreement by the streamers, they may be by the original producers.

fig96 said:

---

I'm very curious about the "remain uncompensated" language there as those writers are currently being compensated, just not proportional to the viewership.

Either way, the fact that streamers have to report their numbers is a game changer and at the root of this whole debacle. They're making it easier for writers, and especially young writers breaking in, to earn a living (which despite your fantasies is not a generally high paying profession).

---

Would love to see examples of how this plays out in reality with respect to how employment in writing actually works because the weekly minimums don't seem like anything to sneeze at.

---

fig96 said:

---

I'm very curious about the "remain uncompensated" language there as those writers are currently being compensated, just not proportional to the viewership.

Either way, the fact that streamers have to report their numbers is a game changer and at the root of this whole debacle. They're making it easier for writers, and especially young writers breaking in, to earn a living (which despite your fantasies is not a generally high paying profession).

---

Fenrir said:

Would love to see examples of how this plays out in reality with respect to how employment in writing actually works because the weekly minimums don't seem like anything to sneeze at.

---

Because writers are rarely employed full time, they're staffed on a show for usually a few months.

fig96 said:

---

I'm very curious about the "remain uncompensated" language there as those writers are currently being compensated, just not proportional to the viewership.

---

I assume that means remains uncompensated for streaming. That their deals cover TV only.

Quote:

---

Either way, the fact that streamers have to report their numbers is a game changer and at the root of this whole debacle. They're making it easier for writers, and especially young writers breaking in, to earn a living (which despite your fantasies is not a generally high paying profession).

---

When did I say that it was a high paying profession? Saying somebody is overpaid does not mean it's high pay. Burger flippers making $10/hr are likely overpaid, but that doesn't mean that $10/hr is high pay either.

If the cost of living was still reasonable, then even their low pay would still be enough to live off of. Hell, my grandfather was a mechanic without a college education, and yet he was able to buy a house, send his 3 kids to college, and save enough that his wife could live 40 years without working a single day (he died young of a heart attack). That's the way things were when government didn't impose ridiculous costs on everybody. We don't have a salary problem, we have a cost problem.

---

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

fig96 said:

---

I'm very curious about the "remain uncompensated" language there as those writers are currently being compensated, just not proportional to the viewership.

Either way, the fact that streamers have to report their numbers is a game changer and at the root of this whole debacle. They're making it easier for writers, and especially young writers breaking in, to earn a living (which despite your fantasies is not a generally high paying profession).

---

Fenrir said:

Would love to see examples of how this plays out in reality with respect to how employment in writing actually works because the weekly minimums don't seem like anything to sneeze at.

---

fig96 said:

Because writers are rarely employed full time, they're staffed on a show for usually a few months.

---

I mean the minimum for 3-4 months of work is not bad. Now if the employment terms are even shorter I can see issues but ~$50-70k for the lowest wage rate for a few months is hardly struggling in my mind. Which is why I'm curious what a typical employment situation is for the minimum wage earners.

Your repeated references to bloated salaries would seem to indicate you think they're overpaid.

And cost of living has gone up everywhere, that has nothing to do with the fact that the last 10 years have seen new methods of media distribution that needed some kind of rules to compensate writers fairly for their work. Which the studios weren't in a rush to do.

Some details of the settlement with the writers can be found here (haven't seen anything other than economics discussed here in awhile). I'd cut and paste, but that's basically the entire content of the article:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/hollywood-writers-guild-calls-end-strike-wednesday-2023-09-27/

fig96 said:

---

Your repeated references to bloated salaries would seem to indicate you think they're overpaid.

---

I don't think you actually read my post. Again.. overpaid != high pay. One can receive low pay and STILL be overpaid.

In a normal world, the equilibrium pay for writers would STILL be enough to live off of, even though it would certainly be lower than what they get now. That's because the cost for rent, food, travel, etc. would also be a fraction of what we pay now. It would still be that way if it wasn't for government idiocy.

Quote:

---

And cost of living has gone up everywhere, that has nothing to do with the fact that the last 10 years have seen new methods of media distribution that needed some kind of rules to compensate writers fairly for their work. Which the studios weren't in a rush to do.

---

Also in a normal world... writers would negotiate compensation individually like the rest of us. I was a contractor for several years, and no two contracts I signed was alike. So when streaming was invented, writers would start negotiate that as part of their new individual contracts immediately. They wouldn't have to wait until the union decided to go on strike years later.

TX AG 88 said:

---

I've noticed that aTmAg guy gets in a lot of lengthy debates that are side tracks to the main thread topic on here. That is all.

---

Yup. It's a hallmark of somebody whose entire existence/identity is defined by their political views.

---

TX AG 88 said:

---

I've noticed that aTmAg guy gets in a lot of lengthy debates that are side tracks to the main thread topic on here. That is all.

---

Ervin Burrell said:

Yup. It's a hallmark of somebody whose entire existence/identity is defined by their political views.

---

Everybody else is too. They just too ignorant to realize it. When the economy implodes and they start going hungry, they will wonder "what happened?" If only they paid attention and actually thought about things prior, then perhaps they could have helped keep it from happening.

I guess Drew's writers all quit. Though to be fair, it might have been because they found out she was coming back from an audience ticket giveaway. Which is pretty crappy.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/drew-barrymore-show-writers-decline-return-1235606269/

C@LAg said:

---

Final domino:

To Our #SagAftraMembers:

SAG-AFTRA and the AMPTP will meet for bargaining on Monday, Oct. 2. Several executives from AMPTP member companies will be in attendance. As negotiations proceed, we will report any substantiative updates directly to you. pic.twitter.com/3t0PICBw1N

— SAG-AFTRA (@sagaftra) September 28, 2023

Loading full tweet…

---

https://twitter.com/sagaftra/status/1712368110253285730

Loading full tweet…

SAG-AFTRA deal is imminent, per John Campea. Likely tonight or tomorrow.

This is basically the last week for broadcast to be able to have any kind of a scripted spring slate (episodes for which are currently being written, which means already invested $$$) and for studios to save the summer blockbuster schedule. Apparently, if the strike were to last any longer past this week, everything goes up in smoke, and it might not be settled until early next year. So the two sides are finally coming to their senses and working overtime to try and have this thing settled by November 1st-ish. Everyone seems hopeful/encouraged that it's going to happen, but we shall see…

I sent in an application to SAG at the end of June for a basic theatrical agreement project. $1082 per 8 hours +21.5% pension and health. The budget had $500K in for actors plus the potential for breakage but was told I would need to apply for the interim agreement. I applied and sent them everything they were asking for months ago. Got an approval last night just in time to miss my filming window.

Edit: date correction.

TCTTS said:

---

This is basically the last week for broadcast to be able to have any kind of a scripted spring slate (episodes for which are currently being written, which means already invested $$$) and for studios to save the summer blockbuster schedule. Apparently, if the strike were to last any longer past this week, everything goes up in smoke, and it might not be settled until early next year. So the two sides are finally coming to their senses and working overtime to try and have this thing settled by November 1st-ish. Everyone seems hopefully/encouraged that it's going to happen, but we shall see…

---

I'm surprised the union has time for that with all the policing of Halloween costumes they're doing.

It's so dumb, and so unnecessary. At exactly the wrong time, too.

SAG-AFTRA Negotiations to Continue Wednesday With Deal in Sight https://t.co/FGsRd8LLlf

— The Hollywood Reporter (@THR) October 31, 2023

Loading full tweet…

This feels significant. Hopefully this thing is finally about to end...

Hollywood’s major studios have agreed to adjust language on artificial intelligence as they move closer to a contract agreement to end the 117-day SAG-AFTRA strike.

SAG-AFTRA leaders are set to meet this afternoon with the union’s negotiating committee. https://t.co/9kvXTifHuL pic.twitter.com/SUCYlthSD9

— Variety (@Variety) November 7, 2023

Loading full tweet…

SAG-AFTRA & Studios Achieve AI Breakthrough; More Negotiations Set For Later Tuesday (click photo below for story) https://t.co/pAKRfzYnDz

— Deadline Hollywood (@DEADLINE) November 7, 2023

Loading full tweet…

SAG-AFTRA Negotiating Committee Moves Toward Final Vote https://t.co/VH9KAHz9bN

— The Hollywood Reporter (@THR) November 8, 2023

Loading full tweet…

SAG-AFTRA Approves Deal to End Historic Strike https://t.co/yR94sEFDQy

— Variety (@Variety) November 9, 2023

Loading full tweet…

April 30.

That was last day this town/industry felt any semblance of normalcy.

192 days ago.

Finally, at last, both strikes are over.

Prepare yourselves…

The casting news that we’re gonna get in the next couple weeks before Thanksgiving in the U.S. is gonna be biblical.

— Johnny Sobczak (@JohnnySobczak) November 9, 2023

Loading full tweet…

What does this mean?