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.
First off, I have to say that Nonimus presents an eloquent, nuanced argument in these comments. They're a treat to read.
And second, a few points to Alex...
Regarding the cost of free work: in the example I cited (and apparently in the writers guild as well) that free work has real value. The quality is often very high, because it's being offered by educated, talented people who are anxious to prove their abilities. And I'm not sure how you decided what the "intrinsic value" of a writer is, but I'd be curious to see the math.
In terms of barriers to employment, the guild is a direct analogue to the studio. The studio decides who works in their business, just as the guild does in theirs. True, a potential studio employee can negotiate between studios – but a group of writers can also form a competing union if they feel their interests aren't being fairly represented. Unions compete for members in the same way corporations compete for employees.
And finally, your opinion of market forces is simplistic: if you think that unions skew market forces but powerful corporations do not, you're seeing only a tiny fraction of the whole picture. Market forces are controlled by those wielding the most power, and for that reason, they should not be blindly defended.
I'll answer for Nonimus, if I may: royalties are a traditional basis of compensation for television writers. If someone took a portion of your usual pay for themselves, would you sit quietly? That's exactly what's happening here: as content shifts from TV to the internet, a fundamental piece of the writer's compensation is being taken by the studios. And yet you seem to think it's unfair of them to protest.
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?
I know how market forces work on paper – but reality is far more complex and nuanced. Specifically, there is a deep and inherent flaw in your statement, “If someone takes it at that price, then obviously the price is fair.” That is not obvious, nor is it true.
Let me cite one example. I am not a writer, but I work in a creative profession that has a large pool of young, very talented people looking for their first break. In order to get it, they’ll attempt to undercut the established players, sometimes even doing that first project for free. “Free” is not a fair price, you’d probably agree – but they do it in hopes of attracting future work. What they don’t understand is that when they’re later being considered for that future work, someone who’s younger and hungrier will offer to do THAT for free, just like they did.
And citing what a few writers make without addressing the larger industry economics is specious at best, for two reasons. First, a tiny percentage of writers are head writers of hour-long network shows: the true pay averages are far lower. Second, the television season is only 24 weeks long, so even $3,000 a week is $72,000 a year: not bad pay, but solidly middle class in LA. The kicker is, neither of those arguments even matter: in the end of the day, if the work they do is generating tremendous income, they deserve to benefit from it. You might look at their current income and decide you can’t sympathize with them, but sympathy is an emotion, and fairness is not.
I suppose my question is ultimately this: studios structure themselves and consolidate resources in order to exert their control in the market. Why on Earth should writers be denied that same ability? Where is the fairness in that?
It's impossible for any lone writer to effectively invoke market forces by turning down work, because his or her "share" of the market is minuscule relative to that of the studio. That's why any group of workers unionizes, to level the playing field.
I think American unions have shot themselves in the foot repeatedly over the past fifty years -- but I still bristle whenever I hear someone describe "market forces" as some sort of noble construct or panacea. Market forces are not inherently equitable, because they concentrate around large, powerful entities.
Writers wife seems aghast that her husband doesn't get paid to pitch shows to the studios, is if that "dirty little secret" is exclusive to the entertainment industry. Just about any business I can think of involves unpaid speculation of a similar sort. It's usually called "marketing," and no one ever pays you to do it.
Oh, and Ray, if no one cared about this, television wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry. And it's not work-for-hire, obviously, so you're wrong again. (You are an a**hole, though, so you got something right.)
Interesting description, Sid, thanks -- but I don't think it would quite play out as you've described it. You're assuming the work of a "private firefighter" is the same as that of a "public firefighter," which isn’t the case. The private crews protect individual properties, and do little or nothing to knock down the larger fire. There’s no substantial lessening of need in that scenario: the same requirements exist for public firefighters to actually fight the fire, rather than merely defend specific properties.
One other thing I don't follow: how would this scenario "also reduce the wage competition for the good people as well"? (And after you’re done explaining that, explain why reducing wage competition would even be a goal – I thought competition was good for everyone, always…)
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.
And second, a few points to Alex...
Regarding the cost of free work: in the example I cited (and apparently in the writers guild as well) that free work has real value. The quality is often very high, because it's being offered by educated, talented people who are anxious to prove their abilities. And I'm not sure how you decided what the "intrinsic value" of a writer is, but I'd be curious to see the math.
In terms of barriers to employment, the guild is a direct analogue to the studio. The studio decides who works in their business, just as the guild does in theirs. True, a potential studio employee can negotiate between studios – but a group of writers can also form a competing union if they feel their interests aren't being fairly represented. Unions compete for members in the same way corporations compete for employees.
And finally, your opinion of market forces is simplistic: if you think that unions skew market forces but powerful corporations do not, you're seeing only a tiny fraction of the whole picture. Market forces are controlled by those wielding the most power, and for that reason, they should not be blindly defended.
I'll answer for Nonimus, if I may: royalties are a traditional basis of compensation for television writers. If someone took a portion of your usual pay for themselves, would you sit quietly? That's exactly what's happening here: as content shifts from TV to the internet, a fundamental piece of the writer's compensation is being taken by the studios. And yet you seem to think it's unfair of them to protest.
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?
I know how market forces work on paper – but reality is far more complex and nuanced. Specifically, there is a deep and inherent flaw in your statement, “If someone takes it at that price, then obviously the price is fair.” That is not obvious, nor is it true.
Let me cite one example. I am not a writer, but I work in a creative profession that has a large pool of young, very talented people looking for their first break. In order to get it, they’ll attempt to undercut the established players, sometimes even doing that first project for free. “Free” is not a fair price, you’d probably agree – but they do it in hopes of attracting future work. What they don’t understand is that when they’re later being considered for that future work, someone who’s younger and hungrier will offer to do THAT for free, just like they did.
And citing what a few writers make without addressing the larger industry economics is specious at best, for two reasons. First, a tiny percentage of writers are head writers of hour-long network shows: the true pay averages are far lower. Second, the television season is only 24 weeks long, so even $3,000 a week is $72,000 a year: not bad pay, but solidly middle class in LA. The kicker is, neither of those arguments even matter: in the end of the day, if the work they do is generating tremendous income, they deserve to benefit from it. You might look at their current income and decide you can’t sympathize with them, but sympathy is an emotion, and fairness is not.
I suppose my question is ultimately this: studios structure themselves and consolidate resources in order to exert their control in the market. Why on Earth should writers be denied that same ability? Where is the fairness in that?
It's impossible for any lone writer to effectively invoke market forces by turning down work, because his or her "share" of the market is minuscule relative to that of the studio. That's why any group of workers unionizes, to level the playing field.
I think American unions have shot themselves in the foot repeatedly over the past fifty years -- but I still bristle whenever I hear someone describe "market forces" as some sort of noble construct or panacea. Market forces are not inherently equitable, because they concentrate around large, powerful entities.
Oh, and Ray, if no one cared about this, television wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry. And it's not work-for-hire, obviously, so you're wrong again. (You are an a**hole, though, so you got something right.)
One other thing I don't follow: how would this scenario "also reduce the wage competition for the good people as well"? (And after you’re done explaining that, explain why reducing wage competition would even be a goal – I thought competition was good for everyone, always…)