Goodbye Mona, Hello Merger?
Big news in the world of the WGA this past week. No, it’s not about how we’re going to sit back down at the bargaining table (I still expect that to be as relevant as post-season strategy for the Tampa Bay Devil Rays).
Mona Mangan, the Executive Director of the WGA East, has announced her impending retirement.
My immediate reaction was a simple “Thank God.”
Before I explain why I’m so happy Mona is leaving, let me first make it clear that I have no personal issues with Ms. Mangan. My quarrels with her are entirely professional.
The Executive Director is a critical position. The ED runs the staff (including all hiring and firing), the ED executes all policy, the ED acts as “chief negotiator” during collective bargaining…and more to the point, the ED really runs the union during the 353 days of the year the Board or Council isn’t meeting.
Mona has been running the WGA East for 29 years.
Since her rise, the West has had a number of different Executive Directors. Naomi Gurian, Brian Walton, John McLean and now David Young. Those four people are very, very different, and they were each supported by differing factions within the WGAw. They all, however, share one thing in common.
They despise Mona.
Mona’s reputation was summed up as such in THR.
But those at the networks and Mangan critics in the WGA West—where jurisdictional disputes have caused hard feelings in some quarters over the years—tend to fault Mangan’s personal negotiating style, which they claim is long on formality and short on practicality.
That’s a bit of a whitewash. Mona is long on formality, but what she’s really short on, in my humble opinion, is managerial, political or negotiating talent.
As I see it, Mona either takes forever to close deals (she got the 2003 PBS contract ratified a few weeks before it expired) or simple has no end-game in sight (see her current disaster of a negotiation, the CBS Newswriter stalemate). During my brief exposure to her, I was neither impressed by her grasp of facts or detail or strategy.
In short, I think she sucked at her job.
More damning that that…I don’t know anyone in WGA west leadership (membership or staff) who disagrees with me. No one. For all of our fights over negotiating strategies, credits, priorities, militance, etc., Mona is the great Unifier.
However, suckage wasn’t Mona’s greatest liability.
If Mona was really good at one thing, it was her ability to stay in power. She accomplished that a number of ways, but I think one of her aces in the hole was her identity as “the defender of the beleaguered East against the bullying West.”
Allow me to explain.
The WGA west is much bigger than the East. We have close to three times as many members. Furthermore, almost all of our members are screenwriters or television writers, whereas something like a third of the WGAE’s members are newswriters. Newswriters tend to earn less, which means that the WGAw brings in much more in dues money every year. On top of that, the WGAw controls the negotiation process for the “big” MBA that governs television and screenwriting. Finally, the membership requirements to get into the WGAw are more stringent than those in the East (to get into the WGAw you have to do a certain amount of covered work, whereas in the East you simply need any covered work). The WGAw thus has a staff of nearly 200 employees; the WGAE gets by with about 30. The WGAw has probably 30 attorneys on the payroll; the WGAE has two, I think.
You can see the circumstances. The WGAE has a natural inclination to feel bullied by their big brother in the west, and the WGAw has a natural inclination to feel like they’re dragging a “dead Siamese twin” around (credit for that goes to Tim O’Donnell).
But wait. Why are there two unions at all?
Well, back in the 40’s, this made…oh…20% sense. It was never reasonable. The divisions of the two unions had a lot to do with the divisions between the political groups that gave rise to them. Still, with New York as a dominant television center and Los Angeles as a film center, and with geography still a major issue in the way work was done, it wasn’t the craziest idea.
Today? In 2007? When everything is digital and businesses are scattered around the world and information moves at the speed of light? No. The idea of two unions delinated by geography is beyond moronic.
So why hasn’t merger occurred?
One possible answer is….Mona.
In 2006, Mona’s salary was $434,323. The total amount the WGAE paid out in salary in 2006 was $2,313,831. This means that Mona, one person, accounted for nearly 20% of the entire salary expenditure of the union she directed.
To put that in context, in 2006 the WGAw paid out about $500,000 to our Executive Director (that amount was split between John McLean, who was fired, and David Young, who replaced him). Total salary paid out by the WGAw in 2006? $11,582,000. While Mona soaks up 20% of the WGAE payroll, our E.D. accounts for about 4%.
That huge difference tells you a lot. For the size of her union, Mona was overcompensated…and one way to protect that overcompensation was to make sure no one killed the golden goose.
By “golden goose” I mean “stupid two union system.”
Our two unions account for enormous redundancy. We have two E.D.’s, two credits departments, two Presidents, two Boards, two magazines, two newsletters, two buildings, two staffs, two outside counsels……
….stooooooopid.
Besides, there are literally ZERO issues that are geographically determined. Take me (WGAw, lives in Southern California) and my friend Stephen Schiff (WGAE, lives in Manhattan). He writes movies. I write movies. He gets residuals, I get residuals. He goes through credit arbitrations, so do I. All the same rules.
I’ll add some irony. He tends to write for companies located in Los Angeles, and I tend to write for companies located in Manhattan.
Why the hell are we in two different unions?
In my opinion, there have been two roadblocks to merger. The first is Mona, who certainly had circumstantial reasons to oppose merger. The second is the issue of newswriters.
Newswriters work under a different contract than screen and television writers. In their current situation, it shouldn’t be that big of a power gain for them to have a greater say in the WGAE than they would in, say, one big union…because they’re under a different contract.
Ahhhh, but newswriters are guaranteed a certain amount of positions on the WGAE Council, and that council votes on things like accepting or rebuffing MBA contracts, striking over MBA contracts, etc. So in the WGAE, newswriters actually have guaranteed votes on whether or not screenwriters or television writers should strike, take a contract, etc.
That’s power they probably don’t want to cede. Furthermore, when they’re a third of the membership of a smaller union, they will always have a bigger voice in that union.
So what’s the answer?
I propose that once Mona’s gone, the two unions move immediately to create a merged union that would function as such:
One National Union
It’s called the WGA. Main office in the West, smaller adjunct office in the East. That union has a National Board that meets twice a year or so, in order to approve general matters of allocation, major staff issues, etc. But the real work of the union is done by…
Screen & Television Writers of America and News Writers of America. The STWA and the NWA (heh) are essentially locals of the WGA. They are subunions with their own leadership, their own Executive Directors, their own negotiating committees, their own elections, their own contracts, etc.
They don’t touch each other in any way.
If you write a movie or television show under a MBA contract, you’re in the STWA, local of the WGA. Doesn’t matter if you live in L.A., New York or somewhere in deep space.
If you write news under a MBA contract, you’re in the NWA, local of the WGA. Same deal. Location is irrelevant. Everything’s about the work you’re doing, not the zip code in which you’re doing it.
At long last, our union wouldn’t be a house divided by nonsense politics, baloney recriminations and petty turf wars.
There is no justification to divide a union by geography, and there is every justification to divide it by work area. Our current arrangement is a disaster.
Everyone knows it.
And the solution is painfully obvious.
Now that Mona is leaving, I believe there’s a chance the painfully obvious can become joyously real.
Craig:
Do you know if Mona’s retirement is voluntary?
But would NWA actually support the NWA? Now there’s a corporate campaign if I ever saw one… and the song practically writes itself…
Straight outta Compton,
I’m a crazy-ass writer…
:-)
Kevin:
I suspect so. The rumors I had heard was that she wanted to get a certain amount of years (or maybe a certain age) in order to get the most out of her pension deal, and then she’d go.
Craig —
Would a combined union help us during contract talks?
And, if there is a strike, are the WGAe news writers walking off their jobs, too?
Thanks.
Jon Hotchkiss
I propose the WGAe add a library - the one here in LA is pretty excellent, I think, but NY has none.
Jon:
Yes, I think it would. One of the problems we face in negotiations is the way that we jointly bargain with the WGAE. On the one hand, the WGAw gets more votes on the Negotiating Committee (fair, since we have far more writers working under the contract). On the other hand, if the WGAE Council rejects the deal and the WGAw accepts it, that can lead to a rejection of the whole thing.
This gives them disproportionate power over the process, and frankly, it’s absurd. We should all be one union, unified, with the same membership standards, and with a fair democratic process serving our fates.
Yes, if there’s a strike the WGAw and WGAE strike jointly.
Obviously, the studios and other hiring entities have benefitted by the WGA division all these years. Think they may have had a hand in keeping Mona in place, a la diverting funds into Nader’s campaign?
Julie:
Nah. Nothing that conspiratorial.
Jesus Christ, even as a newbie to the prospect of eventually joining WGA, I thought it was stupid to have two branches. I never knew the real backstory to it, so thanks for illuminating that. It’d certainly be my hope that the WGA will merge. Hopefully soon.
Dear Craig,
I usually agree with you up and down the line on East/West issues; but I think your current thoughts get it half-right and half-wrong.
The half you get right, in my opinion, is the easy half: why the current system is so stupid. Two Writers Guild are fantastically stupid; it undercuts our strength, creates dysfunction; allows for infighting; and… I’m thrilled you point to the salary insanity, because that’s particularly infuriating.
Your solution—two Writers Guild divided not by geography but by contract—also make sense; and that’s part of the problem. It’s logical; and the current east/west divide is far from logical. It’s political and emotional.
In my opinion, the current division is based more on geographical identity and fear of a “bullying” majority than anything else. And this unfortunately isn’t just a newswriter’s point of view.
In fact, the biggest disagreement I have with your essay is what you consider the two current roadblocks to merger:
To these I would add a third (and, to me, the most crucial):
This is the nub of the problem. How do you convince these east members that a division by contract and not by geography won’t disenfranchise their supposed identity and interests?
I should also say: I’m not so sanguine that newswriters would cheer a splitting off of their interests. They do, or at least can, get an added measure of negotiating clout from their more powerful MBA brethren.
But I completely agree with you that Ms. Mangan’s retiring is a great thing: mostly because it lowers the temperature. It allows east and west members to talk and dicker around with possible frameworks and game plans without worrying they’re getting their pockets picked.
But who will replace Ms. Mangan? And is the problem not with personalities, but with structure? Will the person replacing Ms. Mangan fall into the same old dysfunction because the same old dysfunction is the only way to give meaning to his or her position?
—Robert King
Robert:
C’mon. That’s not half and half. You…like….2/3rds agree with me!
Allow me to dispute your assertion that there’s a culture of “anti-management” in the East.
That’s what we’re told. That’s what Mona peddles. That’s certainly how the politics work out there.
But is it true?
Sure, when the WGAE only sends out a “vote no” statement on contracts (as they did in 97), you’re gonna get a lot of no votes. But in 2004, the difference in “yes” votes wasn’t too great between East and West, despite the East leadership’s far more tepid recommendation.
Okay, I just checked.
The West voted 77% YES and 23% NO.
The East voted 59% YES and 41% NO.
Now, consider this: the WGAE’s more relaxed membership and retention rules mean that they’re probably going to have a higher number of non-working writers…and that may account for a chunk of that additional dissent.
This aside, you ask:
Well, I’d start by saying “Hey, have you noticed who’s in power now in the West?”
I agree with the first sentence, but I don’t get the second one. I think they think the second one is true…but is it? We can’t strike to support them, we ignore them completely when our contract is up (like right now), and their “association” with us sure as hell ain’t adding a measure of anything to their current contracts woes.
When it comes to Mona, I believe she is more cause than effect. It is my great hope that cooler, moderate minds prevail in the East when picking a new E.D., but I agree with you that this road is perilous. Any E.D. in the East would seemingly be anti-merger by default.
At best, merger will reduce their role and salary. At worst, it will cost them their job.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Now you’re talking crazy.
Is it possible Mona’s exit is tied to the DOL investigation into Foreign “Levies” which she helped begin when the East put out a trade ad warning writers they were owed money?
She did this to threaten the West during a previous takeover attempt. But it kind of turned out like Pandora’s box. She couldn’t put the issue back in the box once it came out.
Interesting that no one running for WGA office has bothered to mention Foreign Levies in their statements, even to attack those who say money is being stolen. Or to ask why a WGA staffer in charge of the funds felt like they could steal $17,000 from Foreign Levies without anyone noticing. (As you reported.)
But that’s all being handled by the LAPD now, isn’t it, Craig? You even knew it would be handled by the LAPD before they did. You’re must be psychic. You reported that the LAPD was handed over evidence when the LA Times said that evidence was handed over to the DA’s office. It was only later, after your prophesy, that Richard Verrier reported that you were right. But that was also before any evidence was handed to the LAPD. He must be psychic too! ?Now I warned you that the LAPD doesn’t like to be played games with. It’s one thing for you to say on your blog that criminal evidence was handed to them when it wasn’t, but quite another thing for the Los Angeles Times to report on that too.
So frankly the LAPD seemed a little hurt and confused when people pointed out to them that there was all this talk about criminal evidence being given to them and they were the last to know about it. But, happy ending, your prophesy turned out to be true, didn’t it? When the WGA finally handed over the criminal evidence, the LAPD was really happy and got right on the case. Didn’t they, Craig? They didn’t wonder why you had blogged about it and why Verrier had reported on it before it happened, did they? It didn’t make them suspicious about the WGA or the LA Times, or you, did it?
I could go on, but I wouldn’t want to give any reporters at the LA Times a head ache. They’re too busy making deals to go work for PR firms than to try to report on criminal investigations after they’ve actually happened.
Craig: For a long time I viewed the two-union system as ridiculous, for all the reasons you mentioned. But lately I’ve begun to change my mind. The WGAw has been taken over by a Stalinist mentality, that views anything short of slavish adherence to the party line as anathema. To cite but one example, read Dan Wilcox’s campaign e-mail, telling us that we need to vote the Writers United slate straight down the line or management will interpret the outcome as a sign of guild weakness. The muzzling of differing voices within a writers’ guild is a far bigger problem than MBA writers vs. newswriters, east vs. west, or redundant staffs or boards. I don’t agree with what comes out of the east much of the time, but at least it provokes discussion. I worry that one WGA will mean even less dissent and fresh thinking in our ranks. So, if I had to vote on a merger tomorrow, I’d vote no.
Publius
Geez, just read a campaign e-mail from Phil Robinson and Tom Schulman, and feel even more strongly my concerns about Stalinist thinking. Apparently they’re still smarting that McLean disagreed with them in 2004. How else to explain their statement that “he left the Guild weaker than at any time in its 67-year history?” I didn’t realize that McLean was not just the ED but also the President, Vice-President, Secretary-Treasurer, and sixteen Board members. It’s scary when our elected leaders are saying, in effect, don’t bother with facts, just focus on dogma and personal slights. It’s especially sad that two guys with their credits and high profiles come off as so petty and doctrinaire. I go back to my earlier point: the most important thing we can have at the Guild is a full airing of views. Differing voices can’t be looked at as “unpatriotic” or a “sellout to management.” If the only way to achieve that is keeping the writer community fractured with two guilds, and all the inefficiencies that entails, then I say let’s do it.
Publius
What’s funny about that e-mail is, after two years in power with David Young the E.D. the entire time, Tom and Phil are still running against John McLean.
Well, I guess since they can’t trumpet WritersUnited success in orgaining reality television or using corporate campaigns to get us leverage enough to avoid a “Strike or Cave” scenario, they’ve got to do something to remind people why they were elected.
Oddly, though, the one promise WritersUnited actually delivered on was … getting rid of John McLean.
And, yet, he’s still apparently the source of all the Guild’s woes.
Fucking transparent.
What’s sad about that e-mail is that Tom and Phil felt it necessary to attack a fellow Guild member as not being Guild member enough to be trusted. Achieving employment under the MBA, accumulating enough points to become a WGAw Current member in good standing, paying all intiatiion fees and dues required for Current membership — none of that matters, because he used to work for a studio, just like the guy the WGAw Board and membership hired and approved as E.D. used to work for CBS.
Like I said: Fucking transparent.
Excuse me, but is Lawton really trying to imply that the LAPD might be investigating Craig? I don’t get his post. What’s with the PR stuff? He must be off his meds again.
Obviously I try to not dignify Lawton’s rants with responses, but for the record, I deny every implication he makes about me, the LAPD isn’t investigating me…nor is the CIA, the FBI, the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderbergs. To be honest, I don’t even know what he’s talking about.
Hmmm. Let me write J.F.’s inevitable response.
“He didn’t say the DOJ wasn’t investigating him!”
So I’ll be clearer. :)
No one is investigating me. No one’s ever investigated me. My life is stunningly boring.
JF is an AW troll.
ignore him.
Don’t quote me, but I’ve been picking up static from the ether about an ongoing investigation by Encyclopedia Brown into one C. Mazin, for crimes which may or may not have been persecuted against Mrs. Johnson’s opal vase.
“Oddly, though, the one promise WritersUnited actually delivered on was … getting rid of John McLean.”
Ted: You’re overstating. During the 2005 election WU candidates were asked directly on Meet-the-Candidates night and on other occasions whether they intended to fire McLean, and they said no. So they didn’t deliver on that promise either. If you read Jeff Kleeman’s statement, the one that set off Tom and Phil, it’s remarkably low-key. All he’s saying is let’s have some other viewpoints besides WritersUnited on the Board, and it wouldn’t hurt to have someone with studio experience, either. For that he gets attacked as an impostor and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. That may be okay for the Bush White House and the RNC, but it shouldn’t happen at the WGA.
Publius
Publias wrote: “If you read Jeff Kleeman�s statement, the one that set off Tom and Phil, it�s remarkably low-key. All he�s saying is let�s have some other viewpoints besides WritersUnited on the Board, and it wouldn�t hurt to have someone with studio experience, either. For that he gets attacked as an impostor and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. That may be okay for the Bush White House and the RNC, but it shouldn�t happen at the WGA.”
Agreed. Mr. Kleeman’s statement was pretty mild, and the attack was, well, not what one expects from people confident that they can do the job to which they were elected.
But Mr. Elliot is correct to look to the past record of the WU slate. Before they became Writers United, most of them were veterans of the BoD, negotiating committees, the Screenwriters’ Council, and other BoD appointed “power” committees. What they were in that history of dealing with ED’s (Walton and McLean) and other Guild political forces was ineffective. So IMO, what we’ve got in WU is a group of people who can’t lead, can’t fight, can’t follow, and won’t get the hell out of the way for people who can do all of the above. The attack on Mr. Kleeman can be parsed as self-revelatory.
Anyone else coming to Meet the Candidates Night tonight?
That seals my vote for Kleeman.
Gee, Craig, how would you know for sure if anyone in law enforcement is investigating you? That is, until you’re brought into a room and questioned. I suspect when that happens, you’ll stop posting on your blog about Foreign “Levies.” In the meantime, I doubt anyone will give you a “heads up.”
But you’re absolutely right that that CIA, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg’s aren’t investigating you. At least as far as I know.
I wouldn’t be so sure about the FBI. Or the Department of Justice. (I’d wonder about the IRS but why pile on?)
As far at the Department of Labor, if they are investigating Foreign “Levies,” they ARE investigating you since your original posting on the subject is the first detailed official account of the WGA position (since you were a Board Member). And since you say you got your information from Patrick Verrone and Verrone was WGA treasurer and had to be implicated in any wrong doing, you would certainly be someone the Feds would at least question. There is no way they could investigate Foreign Levies without being interested in what you said and why you said it.
So if the DOL is investigating Foreign “Levies” they are investigating you. They might not have officially questioned you yet, but gee, you keep talking about the WGA’s handling of this money and commenting on the crimes being committed, so what’s the rush? I’m sure they would rather read all you have to say in print as long as possible before putting you in that room with the lights and the glass of water.
But WGA Legal Council Tony Segal says the DOL is not investigating, and if they were, he’s not sure they have jurisdiction over the crime. (Hmm… maybe that’s why the FBI might be involved.) So I’m sure you sleep well.
I could promise you the DOL is “investigating” you since I was asked at least a year ago by a lead investigator for all e-mails between us (and Ted Elliot among others). But you don’t believe me, so we’ll ignore that. Why don’t you ask Tony Segal when was the last time he talked to the DOL and about what? What was the name of the DOL agent that walked into the WGA and sat down before him. (You and Ted often asked me for the names of DOL agents. Tony knows who sat in front of him.) Unlike me, you assume Tony will tell you the truth, won’t he?
As for the LAPD, what do you think happened when they started talking to the WGA staffer you mentioned was stealing money? You think she just said, “I’m sorry. I’m guilty. Everyone else at the WGA is really honest.” You don’t think maybe she had a tale or two to tell about the WGA in exchange for… telling the truth? Did you ask the person who told you to write that story what the end game was? Did they tell you the end game was to force a person with a lot of knowledge of criminal activity at the WGA into the hands of law enforcement?
Because I don’t think that was their plan. I think their plan was to try to scare that staffer by leaking the idea she might face criminal charges. And you and Verrier were the stooges that were suppose to do that for them.
Because two other fired staffers, who exposed WGA criminal activities, Ross Johnson and Terri Mial, sued the WGA and got huge settlements in order to sign deals agreeing to shut up.
But I guess some genius at the WGA or PR firm Sitrick (who Verrier’s LA Times boss Jim Bates recently joined along with Ross Johnson), thought if you and Verrier could half-way expose her. Then she would get scared and shut up on her own without a half million dollar settlement to not talk about Foreign “Levies.”
But Verrier appears to have gotten scared for some reason. Like you, he printed what he was told. Unlike you, it appears he didn’t like finding out what he printed wasn’t true.
I don’t know if he called his “sources” and screamed at them, but I do know the next thing that happened was the WGA went to the LAPD to turn both your lies (that they turned over evidence to the police) into a half-truths (they turned it in AFTER you and Verrier reported it). And then what happened?
Well, I can imagine a Detective Friday at the LAPD getting all this evidence from a sweaty, scared WGA official who stuttered when he handed it over. And I can imagine Friday thought, what the heck is this all about? And I can imagine him calling the Feds to find out if there is anything he doesn’t know.
Then I can imagine him bringing the WGA staffer down to the station to question her. And I can imagine her singing like a bird about how the Foreign “Levies” account is just a huge slush fund that WGA officers use like a cookie jar. And how she didn’t think anyone would notice a couple more missing cookies.
Of course, Detective Friday quickly realized this was a State, Federal and even International issue. But there are some reasons he wanted to pursue it locally. First off, if writers in Los Angeles aren’t being paid money they are owed, it is a city crime involving theft of taxes they would owe to the City of Los Angeles. It’s also a fraud against local citizens. And corrupt WGA officials lobbying city officials. Etc., etc.
But most importantly, Friday didn’t like the idea that a couple of stooges, a former WGA board member and an LA Time reporter, would print falsehoods in a possible effort to silence a witness in an on-going Federal Investigation. Not on his turf. Not by pretending that local police are too stupid to understand when they are being used by a bunch of half-assed wanna be union gangsters who are in over their heads in a money laundering conspiracy.
So, sure, Craig, the LAPD isn’t investigating you.
Lawton is just screaming nuts. Craig, you’re a very patient guy, but I don’t know why you even allow him to post. The nut is saying you’re a criminal.
Just ban him like he was banned from WA. No one cares about his rantings. He wants to imply that you are working for the studios and it’s pretty clear to me he is really working for the studios trying to confuse everyone one about the WGA before we going into a possible strike. I really think you have a responsiblity to writers to make sure his posts are deleted.
Please Craig, delete me. I have a record of this post. It will only make the DOL and mainstream press more interested.
For somebody claiming to have some sort of inside scoop, J.F. sure uses the phrase “I can imagine” a lot.
Imagination is a good trait in a writer… as long as he’s writing fiction.
One MAJOR obstacle to merger might be East Coast members who wouldn’t be qualified for WGAw membership.