Strike Authorization Vote Scheduled
Strike? Anyone?Okay, so here’s a deviation from the narrative.
Even though this post is up at 1 PM, I got tipped off to this one yesterday (and wrote this last night). As such, I’m not reacting directly to Patric’s communication with the membership, but I know the basic gist.
The WGA is asking its membership for a strike authorization vote.
The SAV is essentially a green light for leadership to declare a strike. Once we give it, they can call it (well, they can call it the second our current deal expires, which is on Halloween).
Of course, they don’t have to call it.
And therein we find the rub.
There are two reasons to call an SAV at a time like this, with a deeply stalemated negotiation.
First, you call an SAV so that you can get your membership out on the picket line immediately following the deal’s expiration. Call this the “I’m taking my gun out of the holster because I plan on shooting you” reason.
Second, you call an SAV as a strategy, in the hope that the added pressure and (presumed) show of support from the rank-and-file will turn the heat up on the other side, forcing them to come across the gap to try in good faith to make a deal. Call this the “I’m taking my gun out of the holster to show you that I have a gun” reason.
So which is it this time?
And should you vote yes?
I’m deeply conflicted on this.
If I had to guess, I’d say this move is a tactic rather than a required step leading to a fait accompli. If the vote comes back strong, it really does embolden the union, and it should certainly rattle the AMPTP. Destabilization is required to break a stalemate.
However, it is my deeply held belief that some in WGA leadership (and perhaps many) not only want to strike, but have always wanted to strike, have been praying for a strike for years, and have constructed the political equivalent of a long con in order to get the strike they believe our union requires in order to reclaim some sense of identity, purpose and efficacy.
I would like to vote “yes” and give the moderates whatever strategic tool they require to make a deal.
I would like to vote “no” to keep the militants’ fingers off the big red button.
As one screenwriter I know put it (and I paraphrase): “There’s a reason Sheriff Andy wouldn’t let Barney Fife put bullets in his gun.”
Indeed.
Then there’s this to consider: even if the request is for tactical purposes, is this the right tactic?
Let’s presume that the vote comes back strongly in favor of the authorization. Okay. And let’s say the companies don’t budge.
Now what?
Do we just sit on that authorization? Feels like a public declaration of impotence to me. I worry that Chekhov’s Gun applies. Once you can, you pretty much have to at some point, or you’ve invalidated that tactic permanently.
Let’s say the vote comes back, and it’s tepid (and for these things, anything less than 90% is probably going to be considered tepid). Even worse. Now you’ve managed to publicly embarrass yourself and show a weak hand to the other side.
Here’s the bigger issue.
Why? Why are we still pretending that we matter?
The studios are far more frightened of SAG and the DGA than us. Why don’t we just keep driving through the middle without forcing our own hand? Soften the beaches however we can for the big guns?
Regardless, the die has been cast. Let’s see how the votes go. I expect a higher turnout for this than the election. If the turnout is low, that’s also disastrous.
When I decide how I’m going to vote, I’ll let you all know.
I’m voting no because I don’t think Deputy Patric should be allowed to have a bullet. I don’t think we can even trust him with an empty gun.
Thanks for the forum and taking time out from your schedule to post. Very valuable, if not just to hear different points of view. Came right here after getting the notice via e-mail.
I would feel a lot better about voting to authorize a strike if I felt our representatives had conducted serious negotiations. But we consciously passed up the chance to begin discussions in January, we met briefly in July for some posturing, we had three days of talks two weeks ago, and now the contract expires at the end of this month. Asking people to delegate the decision to cease working and generating any income is a serious matter, even when the bargaining committee has labored mightily for weeks and weeks and come to a stalemate. But when they’ve avoided serious negotiations for months, and have had days, not weeks, of discussions, that’s too reminiscent of Bush and Iraq, Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin, and other delegated fiascos. I gotta say that Craig’s screenwriter friend who talked about giving Barney Fife bullets was on to something. By the way, another thing I’ve heard from my lawyer friends: if we vote to authorize a strike, management can legally lock us out. Wouldn’t it be smarter just to work without a contract? In any event, the more I think about this, the more I think it’s nuts.
Here’s my memory of the strike authorization votes and strike votes in 1973, 1977 (the strike averted by a literal last-minute deal), 1981, 1985, and 1988: The strike authorization vote amounted to a poll of the membership on how far from acceptable the AMPTP offers were. As such, the strike authorization vote will be parsed, both for the percentage of eligible members voting, and the percentage of actual votes.
A strike authorization vote has never allowed the BoD to issue a strike order, unless the membership votes, at a meeting at which proxies are allowed, for a strike. So there should be at least two general meetings coming up. One would be on a strike authorization. That should, and usually was, a meeting with some real floor debate. If negotiations go south from there, a second meeting for an actual strike vote would be called. We can vote to strike then and there, to not strike at all, or to keep working pending the results of negotiations.
Voting against strike authorization pretty much writes checks to AMPTP; there’s not a whole hell of a lot the Negotiating Committee can gain without it. It’s a disabling vote to those “moderates” Craig would like to see with the most influence in a settlement.
That said, there will not be a strike unless AMPTP wants a strike. All the militancy and revanchism and even the choruses of “Solidarity Forever” seem a bit like flummery these days.
It is going to be an extraordinary time for the Guild.
Art: That’s not my recollection, and I was around for most of those labor disputes too. A strike authorization vote is exactly that: you are authorizing the Board to shoot the gun. You are not asking them to come back a second time and ask the membership, “Are you sure you want us to shoot?” In fact, if there were an additional step after an authorization vote, management wouldn’t take the first vote very seriously, which defeats the purpose. I also just checked the Guild Constitution, and there is nothing that requires the Board to seek membership approval before ordering a strike. I think we have to assume that if this vote passes, the Board can authorize a strike whenever it pleases.
I am on the WGAW Board of Directors and the Negotiating Committee. I am one of the “moderates” to which Craig refers. If anyone on the Board or Negotiating Committee took or were to take a strike-happy “fuck ‘em” attitude, I would immediately gird in the opposite direction. I can assure you that has not occurred. There’s been nothing but intelligent discussion and careful consideration of all aspects of the Negotiation, and the decision to ask for a strike authorization was supported by all stripes of the NegComm, Board and WGAE Council.
Whether or not to strike would be met with even more careful consideration.
First I want to say thank you Aaron for your post. I really wonder if the same people who think Guild leadership is gunning for a strike also believe that the Jews blew up the World Trade Center, the Mob killed Kennedy and Rep. Larry Craig really was reaching for a piece of toilet paper. Thank you, Aaron.
And Craig — c’mon, you know, I know and anyone who follows WGAw politics knows that you’re voting yea on the Strike Authorization. Without a 90+% yea vote and at least 4,500 members voting it will be, as you yourself said, the worst thing for our negotiations save bringing back John McLean.
Make up your mind quickly, Craig — not how you’re going to vote, but when you’re going to announce that you’re voting yes on the strike authorization — so that those who visit your blog for advice and direction vote for the strike authorization.
Best,
C…
“I really wonder if the same people who think Guild leadership is gunning for a strike also believe that the Jews blew up the World Trade Center, the Mob killed Kennedy and Rep. Larry Craig really was reaching for a piece of toilet paper.”
I think these are ill-considered analogies.
“And Craig � c�mon, you know, I know and anyone who follows WGAw politics knows that you�re voting yea on the Strike Authorization. Without a 90+% yea vote and at least 4,500 members voting it will be, as you yourself said, the worst thing for our negotiations save bringing back John McLean.”
I don’t recall the Guild ever ginning up a turnout in the 4000+ range. For anything.
MAybe one of the scholars will weigh in with some realistic figures.
I think you may be misunderstanding them. There’s a term in the MBA that says the Guild can’t strike and the AMPTP can’t lock us out until the contract expires. Voting to authorize a strike doesn’t affect that. In fact, it would seem to be protected by the National Labor Relations Act, which guarantees employees the right to engage in union activities.
It may be that you friends were saying that if the Guild authorizes a strike, it may prompt the AMPTP to lock us out before a strike can be called — but, even then, that could not happen until the contract expires (midnight on Oct. 31).
Yes, only a conspiracy theorist could think the leadership which brought us Subservient Donald and two years of failed reality organizing at a cost of million of dollars would overplay our hand.
Ask the writers who lost their jobs on America’s Next Top Model if they trust Patric and company to act responsibly and realistically when it comes to labor action, or if they just like marching around in red shirts with signs.
Anyone who hands leadership this shiny gun and thinks they’re not going to fire it… Well, see you on the picket line in November.
i can appreciate this is a tough choice for some.
however, is it fair to say that failing to authorize this vote shuts down all options to us, while authorizing it with strength at the very least keeps some open?
even if these options create “new problems which must be solved” - ie, dealing with leadership whichever way we can or must at that point, having options is always better than no options, correct?
this is my current position, and id love to hear it debated.
I work on a network tv show and we discussed strike matters at length today. It was explained to us that this was basically a “we’re showing you our gun move” and that though nothing in the constitution could stop leadership from calling a strike once the contract expired (assuming overwhelming approval) - they would not do so without further discussion with membership.
It was also pitched that to strike now could potentially mean a shorter strike as opposed to waiting. Also, since the general thinking has been on both sides that we would work through the contract, by striking now we would have more impact by disrupting both the feature and tv work schedules.
That is what people I trust and work with told me and I think for the most part it sounds reasonable. I am also still making installment payments on my membership dues and willing to listen to all opinions before making up my mind. At this point though I will be voting yes.
—“Let’s say the vote comes back, and it’s tepid (and for these things, anything less than 90% is probably going to be considered tepid). Even worse. Now you’ve managed to publicly embarrass yourself and show a weak hand to the other side.”
And if that happens, then…what? The WGA would lose the power, esteem, and strong bargaining position it currently enjoys?
The studios already assume we have a weak hand. If it’s the case that in fact we do, then demonstrating it conclusively isn’t going to change a damn thing. Craig, I think your previous post described exactly what they believe (and hope) will happen, too: DGA will set the tone for everyone, hammer out some compromise that throws just enough scraps to the writers to keep us docile for another three years, and that’ll be that.
It’s a perfectly good plan if you want the scraps, but the question bears asking: Who honestly wants their de facto representative at the bargaining table to be an entity (DGA) who doesn’t represent their interests at all except out of grudging necessity—who by definition will aim for the minimum deal they think writers will settle for, rather than even try for anything resembling the terms we actually want? Whose primary goal where we’re concerned is simply to neutralize us as a force in the proceedings, so that they can get on with the business that they actually care about?
When I read the phrase “softening the beaches for the big guns,” another phrase comes to mind: Cannon fodder.
—“Why? Why are we still pretending that we matter? The studios are far more frightened of SAG and the DGA than us.”
Honestly, Craig, I hope this is some clever reverse-psychology gambit on your part…but if so, consider it to have had its desired effect on at least one person. (And if not, well, shame on you.)
Of course the studios don’t think we matter. Their insulting “monkey residuals” proposal and their “let’s just keep doing whatever the hell we feel like, and all of you just keep taking it” theory of internet “compensation” have made that abundantly clear already. But the correct question to be asking in response, in my opinion, is: Why the hell would we abdicate the one weapon we do have, during the relatively brief period of time in which wielding it would actually hurt our opponents, in order to get a second-rate bargain-by-proxy that will prove we don’t matter?
I hate to resort to a cliche like “You can’t win if you don’t play,” but…dammit, you can’t.
A strike authorization in hand at midnight on the 31st would change the equation, from the studios’ point of view, from a bearing of time-is-on-our-side complacency to something containing an element of actual fear: Fear that we writers might really do something, and do it on our timetable rather than theirs.
Is that even a valid fear? I don’t know. But I hope so.
Our useless, strident corporate campaign nonsense has harmed relations with the AMPTP irreparably. They don’t want to make a deal with us. The don’t want to say that the rancor, attacks and bad theater works. They’re going to make a deal with the directors.
For the record, I don’t think the Jews blew up the World Trade Center, I don’t think the Mob killed Kennedy, and I don’t really care what Larry Craig was doing.
However, here’s something I wrote back in 2005, when the WritersUnited candidates (now Board members) were advocating the use of corporate campaigns as an alternative to what they called the “strike or cave” paradigm. I maintained that, rhetoric aside, what WritersUnited actually wanted was force the Guild into a strike in 2007. Howard A. Rodman asked me on a message board if honesly believed that; here’s my response:
Yes, I do — because corporate campaigns do not avoid the paradigm of “strike or cave.” The are an additional means for a union to exert economic leverage in advance of negotiations, but the primary economic leverage in any labor-management negotiation is a work stoppage.
All if-comes and wishful thinking aside, there is only one thing corporate campaigning guarantees: that the Guild will expend significant resources attacking the financial relationships, officers and public images and reputations of the corporations that own the AMPTP Companies with which we negotiate our MBA.
Now, maybe, just maybe, those corporate owners will just let our attacks roll off their backs.
Maybe they are far more philanthropic and merciful than I give them credit for, and they will not decide to attack the Guild back through MBA negotiations.
Maybe they will not order the AMPTP Companies to put massive rollbacks on the table in 2007, ones that go after rights we have that the DGA and SAG do not: separated rights, “created by” payments in television, merchandising rights, for instance.”
Look at the AMPTP”s proposal. Look at the summary of the AMPTP”s proposal included in strike authorization mailing. Continuing:
“Maybe using corporate campaigns to attack Viacom, NewsCorp, AOL-Time Warner, Sony, The Walt Disney Company, etc. will not bring about circumstances wherein the Guild cannot even think about making gains on behalf of writers, and must instead do everything it can to defend the rights we already have.
Maybe the WritersUnited/NewWGA plan for this Guild will not engineer a situation where we have no options other than “strike or cave” — except, maybe, “cave or continue to be locked out.”
And maybe this is not your intent. Maybe you and your slatemates have not thought through your plan to its logical and likely ends.
Maybe you have not bothered to find out that other unions use corporate campaigns in two situations only: when they are organizing companies that have no contracts with the union whatsoever, or when negotiations have already deteriorated and the union is already on strike or locked out.
And maybe now that you are aware that your slate has been advocating a strategy that will undoubtedly bring about exactly the kind of “strike or cave” scenario you want to avoid, you will publicly renounce your support for the WritersUnited/NewWGA platform and urge the rest of your fellows to do likewise.
That will certainly convince me that I am wrong in my honest belief that what you really mean is “we want to strike.”
Call me Cassandra.
I’m not a WGA member, but doesn’t a vote to pre-authorize essentially obviate the purpose of voting to authorize in the first place?
I would think that the reason you have votes to authorize a strike is so that members could then look at the offer on the table, or the way the negotiations have gone, then decide whether they want to go with the current offer or not.
If you pre-authorize, then you don’t have a chance to look at the offer first.
It looks likes it’s no different from simply letting the board make all the decisions. And, if that’s the case, why bother having a vote to authorize at all — voting for the board members did all the work already.
I understand that you’ve been finessed into this position where you either pre-authorize, thereby investing all power in the board, or withhold and thus give up a bunch of negotiating power to the AMPTP, which might be even worse. But isn’t that kind of finky of the board to put the WGA members into a position of either giving up their authorization vote or sacrificing their negotiating position?
I wish the “Anonymous” who posted the message that began by quoting Craig’s entry and then continued:
— had signed his/her name. That is a terrific, well-reasoned, well-written argument. More, please.
Anonymous Wrote:
“Yes, only a conspiracy theorist could think the leadership which brought us Subservient Donald and two years of failed reality organizing at a cost of million of dollars would overplay our hand.
Ask the writers who lost their jobs on America’s Next Top Model if they trust Patric and company to act responsibly and realistically when it comes to labor action, or if they just like marching around in red shirts with signs.”
I’m on the New Members Committee and one of those fired “America’s Next Top Model” writers was at the most recent New Members Dialog. He’s now a bone fide member of the WGAw for something totally apart from reality writing. Still, he made a point of thanking the Guild for standing up (or at least trying to stand up) for the exploited workers on that show.
And if you don’t trust Patrick and company, sorry, Anon, but they were just reelected by a resounding margin. Our union is a representative democracy and, whether or you like it or not, a majority of your fellow union members voted for WU. I’m not saying that you can’t trash them until you tucker yourself out and turn in for the night but the bottom line is that we — as a collective bargaining organization — placed the ability to call a strike in their hands.
That’s how it works.
And Greg Strangis — Yes, you’re right, 4,500 members voting in any Guild election is a pipe dream. Still, I pulled that # out of my ass because that’s the kind of number that will work as a splash of cold water on the AMPTP. Down in the 2,000 - 2,200 range would be okay but not a show of force.
Some replies to this recent Anonymous.
I have personally spoken with four of the ANTM writers who stated to me that they were lied to by David Young and Jeff Hermanson, and felt betrayed by Patric. So there’s that. Rashomon, perhaps, but the best we can say is that there’s no one clear perspective on this.
Yes, Patric & Co. were re-elected easily. No, they were not elected by a “majority of [my] fellow union members.” They were elected by a majority of union members that voted. There’s a big difference between 1500 votes and a true majority of WGAw eligible voters, which would be more like 4,000 votes.
Next, no one placed “the ability to call a strike” in Patric’s hands. That’s why he has to come to us now. The constitution makes it quite clear in whose hands this decision first rests.
Ours.
Regardless of whom we elected.
“And if you don’t trust Patrick and company, sorry, Anon, but they were just reelected by a resounding margin.”
I’m sure the AMPTP was pretty impressed by how our president managed to defeat his tough competition.
I can tell you that I, for one, am not looking for an incident that would enable us to strike; and my experience in the Boardroom has not yet convinced me we have Dick Cheneys among us. A strike is what happens when communication fails. A strike authorization vote, particularly a large and unambiguous one, makes successful negotiations more likely.
“And Greg Strangis � Yes, you�re right, 4,500 members voting in any Guild election is a pipe dream. Still, I pulled that # out of my ass because that�s the kind of number that will work as a splash of cold water on the AMPTP. Down in the 2,000 - 2,200 range would be okay but not a show of force.”
Sadly, this 4500 figure sets a very high (impossible?) watermark, in numbers and percentages.
We’ve never gotten close. In numbers or percentages.
Therefore, by your standard, we are preordained to show something less than a “show of force.”
Not good for morale, imho. Or as negotiating leverage.
Why don’t you ask the writers that were pulled of of Temptations (via the MBA’s working rule 80) and then paraded in front of the media, and on picket lines, as if it were their choice to quit the show - how they feel about the re elected leadership. And they’re full WGA members, as opposed to the ANTM editors that were only ‘promised’ membership by Young/Veronne/Hermanson et al. end result, is they were all replaced almost immediatly w/ other writers (or editors)
Sure are a lot of anonymous posts lately.
Signed, Anonymous.
Hate to say it, Craig, but I’m waiting to see what your decision is, too. The pressure is on!
I don’t always agree with you, but I always respect your opinion. You are one of the few writers who have actually changed my mind on issues pertaining to the Guild. Not all issues. (I’m in the hated minority who sees both sides to the issue of the writer co-ops.)
Anyway, I’m looking to the comments section here and reading people’s arguments carefully before I make my decision. I voted for Ted, so I want to see what he thinks, too. He’s lost some of my support with his responses on your board, but he has educated me on so many Guild issues that I want to see his final reasoning.
“Why don’t you ask the writers that were pulled of of Temptations (via the MBA’s working rule 80) and then paraded in front of the media, and on picket lines, as if it were their choice to quit the show - how they feel about the re elected leadership. And they’re full WGA members, as opposed to the ANTM editors that were only ‘promised’ membership by Young/Veronne/Hermanson et al. end result, is they were all replaced almost immediatly w/ other writers (or editors)”
I wish you’ve share a little more of your info here, or at least contact Craig privately. I also know several ANTM writers, and their story is not the glowing one that someone shared above.
Yeah, this whole “the WGA pulled the four writers off Temptations” is new to me.
Source?
Can anyone at the union confirm or deny or illuminate?
Boy what a bunch of anonymous pussies. If you’re afraid to have an opinion and put your name on it, don’t pretend you’re a writer.
From the election that brought Patric and WU to office they spoke and behaved like Nixon’s plumbers unit. They have advocated extortion and blackmail as legitmate tactics for this guild… and they have put them into practice.
Like all great “world improvers” they are full of themselves and their rightousness. And now they want the guild members to march off the cliffs of Mesada (goyem spelling?) and they will call that victory.
For what is called the Negotiating Committee dream team, I’ve seen a lot of cheer leading and not much negotiating. Why? Because they aren’t here for a contract, they are here to avenge the past.
The guild mortally wounded itself in 2001…this is just the death rattle.
Wish it weren’t so. Wish the lessons of 88 had bloomed into a new way of doing business. But wishes won’t feed the bulldog. The current guild leadership makes Bush look like Alexander the Great.
Hi, Ted.
I’d prefer to stay anonymous on this one, but I appreciate the kind words.
Your predictions about the position we would find ourselves in today were clearly quite prescient, but I’m not sure I agree with the cause-and-effect conclusions you’ve drawn from them. My sense is that the corporate campaigns were seen by so few people (fewer still of whom actually gave a rat’s ass when they did see them) that the theoretical “harm” they could have caused to the AMPTP membership is negligible; in fact, I’d argue that it was zero. Those things were an embarrassment to us, not them.
And I can’t bring myself to believe in any case that warmer relations would have changed the studios’ goals for this round of bargaining in the least. Maybe they’d smile and shake our hands a little more enthusiastically before they tried to fuck us, but at the end of the day, we’d still want things that they don’t want to give us, and they’d still be dead-set on keeping their costs as low as possible. In my opinion, we’d still be looking at each other across exactly the same gulf.
Can you imagine any bean-counter in a publicly-traded corporation hearing about the bottom-line benefits of, say, that “profit”-based residuals notion they came up with, and responding, “Well, yeah, but…we really like those guys, don’t we?” I can’t. I don’t think this stuff is personal to them at all. It’s perfectly, hideously rational.
And I think we need to look at things that way, too. Would it be my first choice to be led into battle by the same minds that brought us Subservient Donald? No; nor would it be my second or third choice. But here we are.
And I do have to say…this thing today was well played. It seemed to come as a surprise to people who are seldom surprised, and that strikes me as a very, very good thing.
I really do believe the fall TV season is the Achilles heel of the industry at the moment, at least where our particular bargaining window is concerned. I know everyone’s been stockpiling for a strike, but my sense (purely anecdotal, let me stress) is that they aren’t going to be ready that fast. I believe their entire strategy, in fact, hinges on dragging things out, hoping we’ll work past deadline, hoping we’ll wait to see what SAG and DGA do, hoping we’ll wait, period.
…And I still tend to agree with Craig: If we do that, there probably won’t be a strike. For better or worse, a deal of some sort will be struck in our absence.
But if it’s a bad enough deal that we do decide we have to strike then—right at the time conventional wisdom has been saying all along that we would do so, right at the time that the studios’ contingency plans seem to be targeting—then it’s going to be a siege. With us on the inside, not surrounding the walls. And if that comes to pass, frankly, I suspect our membership will starve a whole lot faster than a group of multinational corporations with plenty of finished product in the can.
All I can think is that if I were a member of the AMPTP, and the person sitting across the table from me had just been given the authority to do direct damage my bottom line in a month, I might be inclined to take that person a little bit more seriously. In fact, I might even consider using that month to try to work out a deal we could both live with.
And my personal, highly fallible, entirely subjective, for-entertainment-purposes-only opinion is that they weren’t thinking about that this time yesterday. Not really. Not seriously.
Today? Maybe a little. So for that if nothing else, well done, I say.
I’m not claiming that a strike authorization would suddenly cause the studios to start hurling bucketloads of double-digit DVD and internet residuals across the bargaining table or anything. But at least we’d be at the fucking table.
Anonymous Pussy:
You make an intelligent argument for what a great strategic move this is. But I, in good conscience, can’t deliver this tool to people I trust so little. Maybe in someone’s else’s hands, but not these guys.
Everyone is treating this like it’s a good message, a way to get respect, a way to get heard at the table…
It isn’t. At the risk of being obvious, we are being asked to authorize a strike. After two weeks of off and on negotiations. Negotiations that we let start six weeks before our contract expires.
We are not at an impasse. We are just still in the grandstanding part of negotiations - a place we knew we’d be. Everyone knew that six weeks wasn’t enough time to negotiate the contract. And yet the same leaders that scheduled only six weeks to settle these huge differences now are acting shocked that the deal isn’t done after two weeks. After two weeks.
These guys have been itching for a fight since day one. How many times have we seen them marching and carrying signs and wearing red shirts - even when, according to them, the WritersUnited party was the alternative to striking?
If you vote “yes,” you’re going out on strike. These guys want a victory, not a deal. If you don’t believe that, look at how they crapped on the 2004 deal… which is looking pretty good compared to what’s sitting on the table right now.
You may not agree with Patric and think he and others lied to you.
But voting no doesn’t just hurt them — it hurts all writers in the guild. We have to vote yes and at least appear unified. If we don’t, it will be a disaster.
The actor’s deal isn’t up for another 6 months, right?
But we all, including Patric & Co., agree that a writer’s strike alone cannot damage the AMPTP enough to matter? Or don’t we? (I’m recalling Ted quoting Patric or David’s words)
If so, don’t we HAVE to wait for the actors? We’d be out of gas by the time their deal comes up, right?
This is what I’d need to know to vote yes.
If the DGA and SAG agreements were not up for consideration until 2010, how would the WGA expect this to go?
Would there be any bargaining power?
Does the AMPTP have no fear of writers alone?
Should they?
It’s really just a matter of solidarity. If you’re the wideout on a football team, you may think the coach’s call to run the tailback up the middle is stupid. But once the call has been made, everybody on the team better execute. Or you lose.
Vote “yes,” and we will all find out the answer to this question.
My understanding is that a strike authorization is a tool that, wielded competently, can often be used to thwart a strike.
However, everything I’ve observed about this leadership tells me that they’re not interested in using a strike authorization that way because they don’t want to thwart a strike.
They want us to put on red t-shirts and march around with picket signs, and anyone who votes “yes” for this strike authorization in the hope that it will lead to anything but that is likely to regret it.
Me, I’m voting “no” because I don’t believe this leadership has any plan other than calling a strike the second it can legally do so. If I had even a little faith in the leadership, I’d vote “yes” for strategic reasons and would trust that if and when they called a strike, it would be because it truly is our only option for getting a fair deal. But my impression is that they’ve assumed all along (since 2004, in fact, if not earlier) that there’s no point to even trying to negotiate with the AMPTP in good faith. The leadership has therefore not given itself—or us—any other options.
I cannot in good conscience support that, and I will not support that.
Dear Craig,
That was my “anonymous” post to which you were responding. Sorry, but I really hate having to remember to insert my name every time I make a post. Isn’t there a way, as on WA, that a member here can always be signed in under whatever name (even Anon) they choose?
A couple of things worth remembering in the discussion on strike authorization:
First, the yes or no vote debate seems to be based on two separate parameters. The first is “Do you believe strike authorization will enable to the negotiators to get a better deal?” The second is as a vote on strike authorization as a vote of confidence or no confidence about the current leadership.
No question that the current leadership has screwed the pooch in many ways. If organizing reality was essential to negotiating a deal for all writers currently doing MBA covered work, they failed. Corporate campaigning by public embarassment wound up embaradding WGAw. Corporate campaigning by the private in the room leverage… well we don’t have data, but odds are, fat chance that worked.
And while there are reasons to lack confidence in the current leadership, that’s not the right parameter for a vote.
Leadership is fungible. Disasterous courses can be addressed by recall votes. Things outside the bounds of the negotiations can effect the negotiations, such as action by the federal government on the “foreign levies” issues.
So it may be best to consider the issue of strike authorization on only one parameter - does it enable the negotiators to get a better deal?
And about strikes and “shutting the town down” — super profits for the companies for a quarter or three while they pay no salaries and rake money in.
Clifford —
If you click the “Remember Me? Yes” button in the “post a comment” section (next to the URL space), it’ll … well, you get it.
-
“Yeah, this whole “the WGA pulled the four writers off Temptations” is new to me. Source?”
Here’s one, the LA times-
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-picket28sep28,1,6485747.story?ctrack=4&cset=true
In Part:”We’re a big moving target,” said David Shall, executive vice president and general counsel of FremantleMedia North America. “The guild has never had the intention of sitting down and negotiating this in a forthright manner.”
He said the union had not been completely honest with its members, citing two letters from David Young, the guild’s executive director, both dated Aug. 27. In one letter, addressed to the show’s outside counsel, he urged the parties to “begin negotiations as soon as possible.” In the other letter, Young directed “Temptation” writers to “cease and desist” their work on the show, saying, “Unfortunately, we have not been able to reach agreement.”
signed,
Anonymous, by need.
What leverage do we have besides a strike? (Feel free to treat this question as real or rhetorical.)
Dear Ted,
Thanks.
Best,
C…