More on the Hollywood Writers Strike

• A.Non.E.Mous
  November 9th, 2007 at 9:02 am

  “If you’re the head writer on an hour-long soap opera, you earn ,b>US $31,879 a week, minimum.”

  That’s why this strike is a joke. Who has sympathy for someone who earns $31,000/week for writing lame stories for fat housewives about cheating husbands, secret lovers, and midgets?

• JP
  November 9th, 2007 at 9:07 am

  The problem isn’t about how much they earn, but the share they get on the huge profits studios make! It doesn’t matter whether the show is lame, if millions of DVDs (or downloads or TV shows) are sold, the writers should get a piece of the cake.

  If the shows are that bad, it’s because the majority of the public isn’t discerning enough to ask for better quality.

• Tyler
  November 9th, 2007 at 9:37 am

  I’m with A.Non… TV is a dinosaur anyway. This strike will just help extinction come that much faster.

• Sam
  November 9th, 2007 at 9:44 am

  Yep, I couldn’t care less about writers and their whining, especially after reading those salaries. If every television in America went blank tomorrow, I’d barely notice except to cheer briefly.

• grouchosuave
  November 9th, 2007 at 9:47 am

  “I wants me Daily Show Back!”

  “When do I want it? Now!”

• L.B. Jeffries
  November 9th, 2007 at 9:53 am

  Wow, all of those blog’s criticisms are about as shallow as it gets. You’re just striking the same way everyone else does? What, did you expect them to put on a play or something? No witty slogans? Don’t you think it’d be a bad idea if your protest slogan was funny?

  I’m in support of these guys 100%. The companies don’t want to pay them for internet use of the videos and they’re right that it’s going to be the future soon. I ditched cable years ago for Netflix, so their claims about the DVD makes sense too. How can you be angry at someone for wanting to ensure their financial future in the coming years?

  And you can stuff the argument that they don’t deserve any money. There is enough bad writing out there as it is, the only way to keep intelligent and clever programming out there is to pay the writer’s well. Otherwise, they’d get better jobs.

• Ant
  November 9th, 2007 at 10:25 am

  Isn’t it average $30K per year, not week?

• Darren
  November 9th, 2007 at 10:42 am

  Ant: Nope, not according to the document I read–it’s a minimum of $30K per week. That may be reduced if they pay other writers the ’script fee’, to about $15K a week.

  I don’t know how many weeks of the year soap operas actually shoot, but if I understand the pay scales correctly, head writers could easily clear $500K.

• Rhea
  November 9th, 2007 at 10:54 am

  The rates sound exorbitant, but remember this: a huge proportion of the union’s members are unemployed at any time. Many live off of residuals. They may paid highly when they are working but they never know what the future brings. In any case, writers’ pay is way out of line with the pay of directors and actors. Without a story, you have nothing. You can substitute actors and directors, but no story means no show.

• Amy
  November 9th, 2007 at 12:07 pm

  I am disappointed with the quote from Variety that the the writers strike consisted of,
  “Picket lines, posters, inane slogan chanting…in others words, exactly what the United Auto Workers or the International Ladies Garment Workers have done before.”
  Not only does this debase the causes of Auto and Garment Workers it loses sight of what the basic purpose of a strike is which is to join together to make a visible and audible protest towards the powers that be. It is not suppose to be theatrical performance to entertain television audiences.

• ted
  November 9th, 2007 at 12:12 pm

  So, you get a job that pays $30K per week. Say you work half the year - 26 weeks.

  26 X 30K = $780,000 for working half the year. The other half you’re unemployed, and only earning residuals. Better start clipping those coupons.

  I like “you can substitute actors”. Maybe in soap operas you can get away with that, but not so much in other shows.

• marshall goldberg
  November 9th, 2007 at 12:24 pm

  Bless the Lady Garment workers,UAW and other like unions for their tactics and successes. For their members are the ones who made the money to send their sons & daughters to school to become writers.

• Alex
  November 9th, 2007 at 1:14 pm

  Well, if money is the crux of the matter, then no wonder the writers don’t get much sympathy from the rest of America: they’re just whining that they’re only making half a million dollars (compared to directors or actors who are making millions)!

  I still don’t buy that movies make millions, so they’re entitled to a bigger piece of the pie. No one has so far countered my suggestion that if they want the upside, then they have to share the downside, i.e. they don’t get paid or even have to pay up if the movie flops.

• L.B. Jeffries
  November 9th, 2007 at 1:49 pm

  Alex, wouldn’t the logic of “If they write crappy movies, they won’t get re-hired” sorta solve that?

• DCer
  November 9th, 2007 at 1:55 pm

  The writers do not get a minimum of $30k per week and “per week” is in real terms, not like our salaries.

  I don’t know exactly what a friend of mine got paid for an episode he wrote for the Cartoon Network, but it took him a solid month to write with rewrites and he got one check for it, plus residuals. If he got paid $30k, which isn’t bad, it was $30k to write that episode, not $30k per week while writing the episode.

  Either way this term “per week” is incorrect.

  —-
  No one has so far countered my suggestion that if they want the upside, then they have to share the downside, i.e. they don’t get paid or even have to pay up if the movie flops.
  —-
  I’ll counter it- a friend optioned several of his scripts for WGA minimums plus more money when the films get made. Ten years later none of his films have been made and he has a different career because he can’t make money writing.

• Alex
  November 9th, 2007 at 4:58 pm

  @L.B. Jeffries #14: Alex, wouldn’t the logic of “If they write crappy movies, they won’t get re-hired” sorta solve that?

  But by that particular logic, then if they write good movies, they’ll just get re-hired. I don’t see how residuals factor into it.

  By all means, if the writers can get residuals from the studios, then it’s obviously a better deal for them. It makes perfect sense for a writer to aim for residuals but it’s also perfectly normal for a studio NOT to want to give it to them. Then it’s up to the two to work it out. My beef is the guild making it an “all or nothing” deal.

  @Rhea #9: You can substitute actors and directors, but no story means no show.

  You can substitute writers. Say a show’s writer refuse to write because the studio is offering too little money. Then the studio substitute the writer, if the show continues to do well, then that’s fair. If the show tanks afterwards, and the studio has to go back to the original writer and offer more money, then that’s fair too.

  @DCer #15: Either way this term “per week” is incorrect.

  That particular example was for soap opera writers, who write for one episode a week. For sitcom it’s obviously different (as Darren Barefoot pointed out).

  If your friend got paid $30K for a month’s work, then that’s STILL a very good amount of money.

  I’ll counter it- a friend optioned several of his scripts for WGA minimums plus more money when the films get made. Ten years later none of his films have been made and he has a different career because he can’t make money writing.

  There’s nothing in life that is guaranteed. He didn’t make money because films were never made. That seems fair to me I don’t know his exact situation, but kudos for him to find another career when he realized he couldn’t make money writing. We can’t all succeed at everything we do.

• Cassie
  November 9th, 2007 at 5:13 pm

  There’s a video on Youtube put on by the writers explaining their position.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ55Ir2jCxk

  And Jenna Fischer (Pam from the Office) explains in her blog why Residuals are so important to people working in Hollywood.

  http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=277533 03&blogID=326434607

• c-dub
  November 9th, 2007 at 5:39 pm

  Alex,

  Why is it wrong for the guild to make residuals an “all or nothing deal,” but okay for the studios to do so? The studios say that no writers should get residuals on internet broadcasts; the writers say they should. That seems like a simple enough basis for a negotiation, but you immediately discount the writers’ position, and I can’t figure out why.

  I’ll repeat my question to you from the previous post: studios structure themselves and consolidate resources in order to exert their control. Why on Earth should writers be denied that same ability?

• Alex
  November 10th, 2007 at 1:07 am

  @c-dub #18: I don’t question the rights of writers to negotiate their own deals with the studios.

  What I dislike is the guild’s power to determine what deals are acceptable. Want to sell your script for less money and take more at the back-end? Nope, you can’t do it per guild rules. Heck, you can’t even write for television if you’re not in the guild. How is that fair?

  studios structure themselves and consolidate resources in order to exert their control. Why on Earth should writers be denied that same ability?

  No, studios compete against each other for talents. The guild, on the other hand, force every writer that wants to work in television to belong to it - the writers can’t work as independents without being blackballed.

  I’ll repeat my question to you: if the guild wants to share on the upside, why not be responsible for the downside? If the movie makes money, then they’ll get residuals/back-end/whatever you want to call it. If the movie loses money, then they get to pay up to help reimburse production cost.

  You know, on a bit of a tangent: I’ve spoken to regular people outside of Los Angeles and outside of the movie industry. They don’t care at all about the strike or the writers - there’s no sympathy there because they don’t think the writers are actually suffering.

• Monroe
  November 10th, 2007 at 1:46 am

  Alex,

  Bringing up the income of a head writer on a soap opera has NOTHING AT ALL to do with this strike.

  First, there are only a small handful of soap operas still on the air (and shrinking), of which there is one head writer per show.

  Second, the strike is over internet and DVD residuals. Soap operas are not re-run or sold on DVD.

  Please stop trying to paint the writers as overstuffed whiners. There are a lot more of us out there who can barely support ourselves writing than you and so many others would like to think.

• Alex
  November 10th, 2007 at 2:22 am

  @Monroe #20: The strike is about money, so it’s fair to ask how much the writers are making in the first place.

  In all of these back and forth discussion, there is one fact missing: the average earnings of a television writer. How much do they earn? Are they suffering financially?

  I’ll reiterate my (and other people’s) opinion regarding writers: we think you’re already being paid a lot for what you do, but you want more because you see other people (actors, directors, producers) making more money than you.

  It is not my intention to paint writers as overstuffed whiners. In the comments above, I focused mainly on the role of residuals and the guild. Only in one instance (#12) did I say writers are whiners, and that’s in context of them clearing over $500K (as noted in #8).

  Monroe, let me ask you this question again: if it is fair and equitable if a writer gets the upside when a movie does well, then isn’t it also fair and equitable to ask them to pay up if the movie flops?

• Nonimus
  November 10th, 2007 at 4:09 am

  Alex, you are missing the point. Studios produce and distribute content. That’s their business. That’s their investment and risk. They keep the lion’s share of profits. When we talk about “equitable” profit sharing among writers, actors and directors, we’re talking pennies on the dollar.

  The writers’ strike is not about “suffering.” It is about big business that merits better percentages for those who make the business possible. And yes, like it or not, guilds as gatekeepers allow for a sustainable livelihood.

  By sticking together, the guilds have bargaining power to negotiate a fair deal for income and benefits. Despite your suggestion, back-end deals don’t work. The creative accounting of the studios will never admit to a profit to share. The residual system is not some happy accident. It was set up to protect and compensate the talent, rightfully, for all their efforts. The talent’s compensation also incidentally supports the agents, managers, et al, who make tinsel town tick.

  As an aside, how much are you willing to pay your bloggers here on Neatorama? Do you pay them a flat rate per week, per post? Is there some kind of back-end profit sharing after you have covered your costs of doing business? I imagine there is always someone willing to contribute to your site for free (such as through the “Suggest a Link,” or for the promotional exposure). If you paid your bloggers a penny for each unique user to click on their story submission, would it be enough to support them? Maybe it would be an incentive to improve the savviness of posts or to attract other quality contributors? These are rhetorical questions. I don’t know (nor is it my place to care) what the economics of your site are.

  More to the point: It happens that Hollywood can support good salaries. Anyone can break in, if they know the terrain and play the game. No sympathy required.

• c-dub
  November 10th, 2007 at 12:12 pm

  Alex,

  Your double standards baffle me. The guild determines what deals are acceptable in the best interest of its members; the studios determine what deals are acceptable in the best interest of its “members” (shareholders). There is no difference between these two entities that is significant enough to deny the writers the ability to negotiate collectively. And you consistently describe the guild as some onerous construct that’s being inflicted on the writers – but the guild IS the writers.

  I say “studios structure themselves and consolidate resources in order to exert their control,” and you say, “No.” No? A studio is not a structure that consolidates resources? Well, whatever. But again, your double standard is baffling: while it’s true that the guild decides who works in their business, each studio likewise decides who works in theirs. In this case, too, the studio and the guild are analogues.

  The reason the guild should not be asked to assume risk is that they don’t have any say in how much the studio support the project receives. The writers obviously can’t assume liability for a studio’s failure to promote a project.

  And again, this isn’t about the writers “suffering,” it’s about fairness. As content shifts from TV to the internet, a fundamental piece of the writer’s compensation is being taken by the studios. I don’t live in Los Angeles, and I’m not in the movie industry – but I do care about this strike, because it has implications for workers in other professions across the country.

• ryan
  November 11th, 2007 at 1:54 am

  It isn’t the writers responsibility to make a show successful. The producers choose who to hire and which scripts to turn into projects. They are also responsible for making sure everything is done well, on time, and on budget. If the show fails, it’s definitely not the responsibility of the writers. They should be paid for their work just like everyone else. p.s. i hate people who get nasty just because they think people make or spend too much money. Wealth is always relative. If you can’t handle it, maybe you should consider a socialist country.

• Lee
  November 12th, 2007 at 2:02 pm

  Here are some good posts by people within the industry, explaining some of the issues:

  Why writers get residuals, screenwriter
  http://johnaugust.com/archives/2007/why-writers-get-residuals

  To live by the pen by Doris Egan (who writes for House)
  http://tightropegirl.livejournal.com/16033.html
  Dead things on sticks, Denis McGrath (who wrote for Blood Ties) has a running series of posts regarding the strike
  http://heywriterboy.blogspot.com/

  My take on the strike is a little more whimsical.
  http://leesvoice.blogspot.com/2007/11/when-writers-strike.html

• Alex
  November 13th, 2007 at 5:56 am

  Let me respond to a few points raised by Nonimus #22, c-dub #23, and ryan #24. I’ll try to get to every point raised, though I may miss something.

  Re: The writers’ strike is not about “suffering.”

  I re-watched the videoclip “Why We Fight,” which I posted before on Neatorama. The clip stressed that the Guild is fighting for the economic survival of the families of writers (48% unemployed at a given time, others depend on residuals to pay mortgages, etc.), thus the strike is about “suffering.”

  Darren Barefoot dug up a WGA document which dictated the minimum pay for writers. These are VERY well-paying jobs! Most people in the US don’t make this kind of money… No wonder there is not much sympathy for the writers: regular folks view this as the fight between the rich writers and the super-rich studios.

  Re: The writers strike is about fairness.

  Perhaps my understanding of fair is different than yours, but in my mind fair is sharing the upside and sharing the downside.

  A writer is paid (and paid well) for his script: payment is made for work done - that is fair. I don’t see why residuals MUST be included. Again, my position has always been that if a writer can get the studio to give him residuals, then great! But there is no a priori reason why it must be so.

  The video clip pointed out that novelists get residuals (royalties, but same difference). Musicians also get residuals. True, but they don’t get salaries.

  The video clip failed to note that there are other types of writers who get salaries don’t get residuals: advertising writers, as well as those who write for magazines and newspapers.

  [Aside] There is another big difference between a book author and a TV show writer, and that’s interchangeability. A book author is the primary creator of the book. You can’t change the author of a book without changing the book itself, but that’s not true of most TV show writers. Although you need writers for a show, WHO they are is of less importance - thus they are more analogous to factory workers than to book authors.

  Re: Back-end deals don’t work because of creative accounting of studios.

  Would the writers agree on the principle that they should pay up for a flop, if they can agree on a fair and equitable accounting practice with the studio?

  Obviously there is a problem with “Hollywood accounting” but other big businesses (like music and the book industry) have tackled this problem, so there is no a priori reason why back-end deals won’t work.

  Re: bloggers on Neatorama

  Neatorama’s authors don’t get paid for their work (sorry, guys!), but other blogs that do pay their authors do it on two main models: the first is pay per post (”salary but no residual”) or profit-sharing (”residual but no salary”).

  There is also no union in the blogosphere: anyone can write a blog, not just Guild members.

  Re: It happens that Hollywood can support good salaries. Anyone can break in, if they know the terrain and play the game.

  and

  Re: And you consistently describe the guild as some onerous construct that’s being inflicted on the writers – but the guild IS the writers.

  Not so: ONLY Guild members can write for the studios. If you’re an independent writer and you sell a script to the studios during the writers strike, then you’ll be barred for future membership from the Guild (meaning once the strike is over, you can never write for the studio).

  I find it odd that all writers must belong to the Guild - independent writer can’t get a job without joining the Guild. It’s like saying in order to vote you have to belong to a political party.

  Re: I say “studios structure themselves and consolidate resources in order to exert their control,” and you say, “No.”

  What I meant by no is that studios do not consolidate resources into a single hand. They compete for talents, including actors and writers, otherwise they’d be a monopoly (like the Guild). A writer can shop his script to Sony and to Paramount or to whomever. The reverse is not true: all major studios have to hire ONLY Guild members.

  Re: The writers obviously can’t assume liability for a studio’s failure to promote a project / It isn’t the writers responsibility to make a show successful / f the show fails, it’s definitely not the responsibility of the writers.

  Writers claimed credit for success of a movie! They claim that without the story, they’d be no movie/show - their contribution is CENTRAL to the success of the project. (Actors? Grrr! They’re just pretty faces with no talent!) But if a show fail then writers definitely aren’t responsible? You can’t have it both ways.

  Re: i hate people who get nasty just because they think people make or spend too much money. Wealth is always relative. If you can’t handle it, maybe you should consider a socialist country.

  Writers deserve to get as much money they can make. And so does the studios - that’s capitalism. Restricting independent writers? Blacklisting those who cross the picket line? Those are socialistic practices.

  Lastly, my thanks to Lee for the links. The John August’s piece on Why Writers Get Residuals is very enlightening.

Want your own avatar? Get one for free at Gravatar!