I agree wholeheartedly that Nonimus has eloquent and nuanced arguments that are a treat to read.

I find Neatorama's discussion and comments tend to be well-reasoned and polite, a true aberration from the rest of the cesspool that is the Internet.

We disagree on many points, but I will let Nonimus and c-dub have the last words on this post (I will, however, respond to some questions pointed my way on the follow up post). I thank them for a healthy and hearty discussion.

@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?

@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.

@c-dub #33: In order to get it, they’ll attempt to undercut the established players, sometimes even doing that first project for free.

"Free" comes at a price, for most employers this means substandard work from an unreliable source - they actually prefer to pay a professional to get the job done right. Indeed, this is a common problem in many industries, but I have yet to hear the instance of a union forcing software programmer, graphic artist, or webmasters to join it before being able to do work.

@c-dub #35: And yet you seem to think it’s unfair of them to protest.

No, actually it's a fair response given their predicament. I just think that what they're doing is counter-productive: they're setting their intrinsic value higher than what it should be.

I think Sid Morrison #29 already pointed it out that the guild serves as a barrier of entry to writers. They force the studios only to use guild members, and force writers who want to deal with the studios to become a member. This is anti-competitive.

@Nonimus #37: Fair enough, this debate is academic to me (and I hope most of you as well). I don't have a vested interest in the studios winning at all, and I'm not in the least bit affected by the strike (because I hardly watch any TV - those reruns are new to me!).

I'm interested in your views on the principle of the matter and appreciate the time and thought you've put into the comments.

As for my philosophical mindset, I firmly believe that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So far, we've managed to do well with a republic model of the democracy and free market-driven economy, within the boundaries of the law.

Attempts to skew market forces, be it unions, excessive legislations, or monopolistic practices, will only have negative impacts on the economy in the long run.

Bah! My IQ is 34,087,348. So there. Beat that Newton! ;)

Great guesses, guys! The answer is Egg Candler (guessed right by Bill #14).

I agree with c-dub #35. Randall is definitely a genius and the best part of this blog. I wouldn't dare go head to head with him in a game of Balderdash.

@Nonimus #32: A well-spoken argument!

Let me ask you this question back: Why do writers and actors deserve a small percentage of income that their work generates in the first place? I've always agreed that if they are able to work out a deal that promises them back-end or residual payments, then that's more power to them. They definitely should ask for it, but it's not an inherent right that they get paid forever for a work that was done (and paid for) by the studios.

If I write an article for a magazine and I get paid for it, then that's that. I can't go back to the magazine and say, give me a penny every time someone reads that article or buy that magazine.

TV commercial television writers don't get residuals - do you think they have the inherent right to get a percentage of sales/whatever every time the ad runs?

Comparing the writers strike to the baseball player strike is a double-edged sword. Remember that the general public disdained the players as selfish and greedy.

In that case, the baseball team owners own the business (in this case, the studios own the business) and they put their cash on the line - they stand to lose millions or gain millions. If they lose, do they ask for refunds from the players? No, they don't. So why do they have to give the players more *if they don't want to*.

Major League Baseball is a doubly bad example because it's a monopoly, but that's a different matter.

@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.

Whatever you do, don't bring that thing to Boston!

It's unnatural. The cat's probably planning how to kill the owner in the middle of the night.

@Sid Morrison #27: I don't know if WordPress has something against long comments, but logically, long comments have a higher probability of containing one of the targeted keywords.

In any case, I've cropped a whole bunch of keyword that WordPress targets, so hopefully this will minimize valid comments being held for moderation (while probably increasing the likelihood of spam going through).

@c-dub #28: But that is exactly how market forces work. If studio offer is too low, then one writer will turn down the work, then another, then another. If someone takes it at that price, then obviously the price is fair (no matter how low in comparison with actor's pay or what the studio makes).

If an incompetent writer takes it for too low a price and delivers a substandard work, then the studio will be forced to up the price to attract better talent.

Unions did have an important role in history - I've said that. But the writers are actually making good money and as Sid Morrison #29 said, they're working under good conditions.

Darren Barefoot tracked down how much writers are making (as best as one outside the industry could by reading union documents). For soap opera writers, it's $30K a WEEK (or if they have to involve other writers, then it's $15K). If you're a only contributing writer to the soap opera, then it's $3K a week. That's a lot of money! More on this at Neatorama's follow up to this post here.

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.

Here's the Mugabe Mansion mentioned by the article.

Dog yoga! Bwahahahahaha!