The Writers’ Strike
Whatever will happen when people who are paid to entertain the public head into a public relations war against corporate suits represented by lawyers? Limited media exposure.
Nevertheless, when people start to miss their favourite TV shows, they will ultimately blame the studios, not the strikers. It doesn’t take much to see that the writers have legitimate complaints and make for much more sympathetic strikers than, say, NYC transit workers. And unlike the UAW, writers are not fighting with their management over an ever-shrinking pie — just the opposite. Corporate recalcitrance seems hard to justify, and I’ve not seen a good argument on their behalf.
Another remarkable difference between this strike and those in recent memory is that the WGA is a collective of the creative class. Blue collar workers simply matter less in today’s economy. Alex Tabarrok’s brother, a movie producer, writes:
…unlike in most other unionized industries, it’s the INDIVIDUAL members of the unions in the entertainment industry that the management / owners want to work with . . . there are specific individuals who the studios want to be writing their TV shows and screenplays. It doesn’t matter if Joe or John or Mary is stacking the boxes, flipping the burgers or ringing the cash registers so management can easily hire a non-union member to do the same job, in the film business we need to work with specific individuals who happen to be union members.
It’s hard to commoditize writing (unless the product is really poor anyway).
Of course, it probably won’t surprise most regional managers to find out that Toby is behind all of this.
10 Responses to “The Writers’ Strike”
It doesn’t take much to see that the writers have legitimate complaints and make for much more sympathetic strikers than, say, NYC transit workers.
As legitimate as any group of striking workers, I guess. But on a gut level, I’d actually sympathize with the transit workers more. The average working Hollywood writer earns $200,000 a year. Even if they’re unemployed half the time, they’re making six figures, which ain’t so bad even in the Los Angeles area. To me, this looks similiar to a professional sports strike, and I find it hard to really sympathize with either side.
To be fair to the writers, that 200,000 figure probably includes a good bit of millionaire outliers at the top. I wouldn’t be surprised if the lower quintile is less than 50,000, a pittance when living in LA.
And as a libertarian, I don’t really “take sides” in these kinds of disputes. As long as they aren’t strongarming other potential writers from going around the guild, either through the law or through organized crime, then I don’t see a problem with either side. Companies want to pay less for workers and those workers have a right to, well, not work.
I don’t have too much sympathy for the writers – their argument is essentially: “all the other white collar workers cash out big on this deal, we should too!”
First off, I think writers can be easily replaced. Half of Hollywood people are hopeful writers hawking scripts. Also, I have not been impressed with the quality of recent TV shows and movies in general. It’s difficult for me to make the leap of “only they can do it”.
Secondly, this traces back to the oligarchy in place for media distribution. The FCC/state law generally makes it illegal to compete with the cable companies. Off-the-air stations are heavily regulated through licensees. Therefore, the distribution outlets are all cinched up. The probability that a new, creative idea will make it to the end-watcher seems low. The point I am trying to make is that the collusion of distribution companies on the back-end of production tends to discourage innovation anyway, which leads me to question the creative power that the writers have in the first place.
Thirdly, you don’t see a unionization of web masters or other media types. Why do writers in Southern California who work for major media companies feel that their product is better than the average newspaper gumshoe?
Matthew
I think you may be right about Hollywood writers. Friends of ours moved out to L.A. years ago, a husband/wife screenwriting team. They are considered successful — a script they worked on for years was picked up and the movie wound up starring Bruce Willis. Nevertheless, in order to raise two girls and maintain a normal middle class lifestyle, he also teaches screenwriting and she works as a reader for an L.A. literary agent.
Dave S
I have not been impressed with the quality of recent TV shows and movies in general.
You can thank the FCC for the quality of recent tv. In 1995 they abolished the financial interest and syndication rules that prevented the networks from owning the programs they broadcast. (Before that, the networks paid licensing fees to production companies for the right to broadcast their shows twice. After that the production company owned all the rights). So what was the result? Pre ‘95 there were something like 40 independent production companies making tv shows like Law and Order, ER, the Cosby Show, and Seinfeld. Today there are none, all those indy production companies were forced out of business. Network execs are the creatives now. That’s why tv is such a waste and the only stuff to watch is on PBS (and HBO where the shows’ producers are given creative control). OK, and Top Chef on BRAVO.
Anyway, my original intention was to post this interesting little bit of history about unions in general from Nathan Newman:
“Oddly, until the New Deal, the assumption was that unions were really ONLY for skilled workers, that only they had unique enough skills to make collectively withholding their labor effective. It’s actually a modern conceit that sees skilled work and unions as incompatible, since the historic assumption was the exact reverse…”
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/nov/05/writers_strike_and_why_professionals_are_in_unions
Dave S
Thirdly, you don’t see a unionization of web masters or other media types. Why do writers in Southern California who work for major media companies feel that their product is better than the average newspaper gumshoe?
Hollywood is a union town. The actors have a union, as do the directors, dps, sound men, production designers, art directors, costume designers, gaffers and grips. So do the writers. The writers’ contract just came up first. What happens with this strike will be precedent setting. The issue of digital residual rights will come up when the actors’ contract expires, too.
There is a trade union for freelance writers of all types, the National Writers Union (UAW Local 1981) .
Nevertheless, in order to raise two girls and maintain a normal middle class lifestyle, he also teaches screenwriting and she works as a reader for an L.A. literary agent.
OK, but here’s my question–and it applies to all those writers who aren’t pulling down six figures from writing alone: is their situation really comparable to that of a family where both parents must work a total of 60+ hours a week at several jobs to make ends meet? Or is it more like writing is a part-time pursuit that provides extra cash? When you add everything up, if you’re working 40-50 hours a week and making $70K/yr or more in L.A., I think you’re doing OK.
Eric,
I’m not sure why income plays into this at all, though. This strike is about writers getting paid residuals for work that has been done for the digital market, which will be growing exponentially in the future. They cut their residuals 20 or more years ago for what was then, I guess, the VHS tape market, in order to grow it. Well, the market has matured and expanded in all directions, but writers’ residuals are still next to nothing.
Anyway, writers may write full time, but they are not necessarily employed full time. Some might have to take other jobs because they’ll provide a steady income between writing gigs. Like actors who have to work as waiters or bartenders.
And I don’t know about L.A., but here in NYC, $70,000/year doesn’t go very far, (esp when you are paying for your own health insurance).
JohnS,
I’m interested in getting a handle on just how much writers are being paid for the amount of work they do. If a writer in the lowest quintile is only paid $50,000 a year but he only works an average of 20 hours a week to earn that income, that’s a different situation than if he worked 40 hours to earn it.
I don’t see anything fundamentally unfair about whether writers get residuals or not. The vid Zach linked implied that writers were exploited in the old days because they were only paid up front, and not for every time the shows they contributed to were aired. Well, so what? It’s like the difference between renting something and selling it–either can be fair if both parties agree to the price.
Eric,
The issue, as I understand it, has to do with the fact that the last time the writers negotiated a contract, they agreed to a very substantial residuals cut in order to help producers build up the fledgling market for home videos.
That market blossomed and now we’ve on to DVDs and online. Now they want their fair share. BTW, these very same issues will arise for the actors when their contract is up, so this is precedent setting.
I’m not sure why how many hours/week a writer puts in has much to do with this. It does not appear to be an issue.
It only has to do with how sympathetic I am toward the striking writers. If they are making an effective hourly wage that is well above the median hourly wage in America, then I’m not very sympathetic toward them. (Although, if the studio owners made (presumably non-binding) pledges that residuals would increase when the home video market grew, then I’m even less sympathetic toward those owners.)
My problem with unions in general is that they are effectively engaging in price-fixing when it comes to wages. If employers did the same thing, it would be illegal.