For those of you not knee-deep in this -- John August explains it best here:
If you know absolutely nothing about the issues — or if you have to explain it to your grandmother, who’s upset that her favorite soap opera is off the air — here’s my very short summary of the situation.There are certainly other issues in play -- separation of rights, etc. Craig Mazin has all that stuff covered very well, and he's certainly far more knowledgeable than I am. Just go to his site and scrawl backwards for a few pages, you'll get the whole shebang.
Writers for film and television are paid a small fee when the things they write (movies and television shows) are shown again on re-runs or DVD. These are called residuals, and they’re much like the royalties a novelist or a songwriter gets.
Residuals are a huge part of how writers are able stay in the business. These quarterly checks pay the mortgage, particularly between jobs.
There’s widespread belief that the rate paid to writers for DVD’s is too low. It was set 20 years ago, when DVD was a nascent and expensive technology. DVD’s are now cheap and hugely profitable, yet the rate remains fixed.
Downloads will eventually supplant DVD’s. That’s why it’s crucial to set a fair rate for them now, and avoid the same trap of “let’s wait and see.”
There are other creative and jurisdictional issues (such as animation and reality television) which are also on the table. According to the AMPTP, residuals are the major stumbling block, however.
For a perspective from somebody who's been through a few strikes go (1) read (2) Ken Levine.
A few quick clarifications before we move on:
There is some grumbling in the press and business humans that this strike is all about artistic types "sticking it to the Man". No. Are writers "artistic types?" Sure. Every television showrunner is also the project manager overseeing a $30-50 million per year business. And if they're bad at it, they get fired. In under a month. Movie writers negotiate corporate hurdles and deadlines, not to mention shaping their product to budgets acceptable to the Mother Company commissioning the work. (Don't blame us if those crazy directors fuck it up and go over budget ...) The 'Man' will ever be there. Please assume we're smart enough to know that. It's show business, people, and anybody who's lasted longer than their first development deal knows and lives the difference.
There is some grumbling among industry types that we should have waited until SAG went out, or even at least taken a few weeks with the federal mediator. That may have made sense if a.) it wouldn't have meant even more stockpiling of material, to help blunt the threat of a strike and b.) the AMPTP was negotiating in good faith, which I don't believe it was, as I'll discuss below.
There is some grumbling among the screen-bloggers of various levels that the strike is being driven by the rich writers who can afford to take some time off work. That the middle class writer will be hosed. This is a bullshit complaint. I keep saying this, over and over again, and will restate it before the end of this post: We are all writing for the box set now. There will be no middle class of writers if we don't get a good deal on internet downloads, just as there'd be more working writers now if we'd gotten a better deal on DVD/home video back in the day. I have immense amounts of sympathy for young beginning writers who are seeing their first staff jobs evaporate, and for all the below the line people who will suffer when production stops. But we gotta do this now.
Why now? John August had a good short explanation of what it's about. The longer version, of why we're doing this now, is aptly summarized in John Bowman's opening remarks to the negotiations, which I'm going to quote in full here. From Craig's site:
"First of all, I want to congratulate our corporate partners at CBS, Time Warner, News Corp., Disney, Viacom, and NBC-Universal on what appears to be another great year for entertainment revenues and profits. Box office is up, and broadcasters are getting ad rate increases across the board, driven largely by digital content created by many of the people in this room. We are all of us very fortunate to be working in an industry that is thriving. It is thriving not only because of the content created by members of the DGA, SAG, AFTRA, and the WGA, but also because the CEOs of these companies are proving to be extremely adept at finding ways to monetize the Internet and other new technologies.There is a real disconnect, however, between what the companies are reporting to Wall Street and what they’re saying to the talent community. Investors are hearing about the changing landscape in entertainment and exciting new markets to exploit. In contrast, the AMPTP communicates nothing but problems to the Writers Guild. Problems like-and this was mentioned by AMPTP at a recent press conference-ad skipping, even though NBC Universal had just announced a one billion dollar DVR deal. And while WGA member revenues have not kept pace with industry growth-we are a line item that is definitely under control-the companies balk at giving us a fair and reasonable share of the industry’s success.
I don’t think anyone in this room is arguing about the right of writers, actors, and directors to residuals. As collective authors of a work, we are entitled to a portion of the revenue generated by that work. But you have publicly stated that you no longer want to pay us residuals on shows that are not in profit. Here’s why that is untenable:
Writers are a cost of doing business. They have no say in production, marketing, on advertising and publicity, directors, casting, the decision to spend tens of millions of dollars advertising, etc. They can’t be expected to be paid from profits when they have no say in the costs which affect those profits. Profits are under the control of CEOs and their executive staffs.
Intellectual property has rights, just as physical property does. Management has no problem paying the person who made the DVD box before a film turns a profit; they shouldn’t have any problem paying the artists who created the intellectual experience that came in that box either. To claim that intellectual property has lesser rights than physical property is a dangerous argument for anyone in our business to make. You are making the same argument to us that digital pirates make to you.
According to Hollywood accounting, The Simpsons is not in profits. How can we trust that kind of bookkeeping? What other business but ours has the accounting term, “monkey points?”
Residuals from shows not in “profit help” support a writing middle class, and keep writers in the business until they finally create that one great thing. Do away with residuals, and you do away with late-blooming careers like Marc Cherry and David Chase - they couldn’t afford to stay in the business. Your proposal transfers money from developing, promising writers, actors, and directors who need them the most to established pros who need them the least. It’s bad for the business.
Ultimately, your complaint is not about unprofitable shows, it’s about the portfolio nature of the entertainment business. Risk is spread out among many shows, some of which are unprofitable. This economic fact will never be changed, even if writers work for free, as you propose they do on the Internet.
Now let’s turn to your proposal that we do a three year study before bargaining about the Internet. Your reasoning is exactly the same as it was in 1985. Models haven’t emerged, the environment is uncertain, we’ll take care of you later. Well, we know what happened then. Home video and DVD sales soared, and nobody got taken care of later. But this isn’t 1985, when TV writers didn’t envision that their shows would someday end up on DVDs, and they’d get stuck with a .3% return. This time, TV writers can see how important the Internet is - our shows are already there. And, unfortunately for your argument, positive economic events are daily giving the lie to your doomsday scenario.
But if you insist on a study - I used to do studies for a living - I’ll give you one now. The Internet is a distribution channel with no major fixed costs, no media costs, no shipping or handling costs, and margins that are the envy of even the cigarette industry. Though you lose your monopoly on distribution, you have a strategic advantage that nobody else has: strong relations to the talent community. Above all else, nurture this relationship. If you don’t-if, for instance, you insist that members of that community not get paid for three years, or get paid, at most, a .3% residual rate, what possible incentive would they have to work for you? What incentive do they have to help you fight video piracy, when they’re only getting .3%? If you don’t pay them someone else will-Yahoo, Youtube, who knows? It won’t happen overnight, but it will happen, and very quickly indeed, if you bargain so unreasonably that you force talent to go elsewhere for a fair deal. Of course this study is flawed, but then all studies are - you can make them come out any way you want to.
I can imagine an NBC-Universal Wall Street press conference, 18 months from now. Revenues are down, profits are down, due to a work stoppage which you, the AMPTP, collectively, forced. Shareholders are restive. They ask the company this: “Your industry paid 84 million to fire Tom Freston, 300 million to invest in “Last FM.” Yet at a time when it was absolutely crucial that we establish a presence on the Internet, you chose to alienate content providers, the best strategic advantage you had. And you made this catastrophic decision over how much money?"
Today you’ll receive our proposals. They are designed to help writers keep up with the overall growth of revenues in our business. Our operating principle is simple: if you get paid for the reuse of our material, we get paid. So let’s now back away from the edge, get real, and get to work. Studies and profit-based residuals are not serious proposals. They have no legitimate basis in the economics of this industry. They are non-starters for this committee and membership. Our response to such proposals will be a polite “no thank you.” But there are serious issues to discuss, issues that come directly out of our real relationship. Those issues are:
How we will share new media income
How we will produce material together for new media
How we will deal with the non-union shell companies that you’ve created to avoid paying the talent, especially on reality and animation
How talent will get a fair share of home video money
How we will work together on issues like piracy
How we will work together to make sure that new technologies are a boon for all of us
These are real issues. Writers and the talent community deserve to keep up and we have not been. All of our proposals will be focused on that central fact. Writers have to keep up with the industry growth that we help create. It is simple and fair. We look forward to your response, and thank you."
That is one smart sonvabitch. Now, to my monkey ramblings ...
We Set A Bit of Context:
One of my favorite jokes, just a lovely piece of writing, is Chris Rock's bit about the time one of Siegfried and Roy's tigers mauled Roy.
"Everybody's mad at the tiger. 'That tiger went crazy!' That tiger didn't go crazy ... that tiger went tiger."
This is how I feel about corporations in general, extended to the Studios in particular. There are those who rail at the AMPTP for being profit-maximizing heartless, soul-less bastards as if that were a bad thing. It's not.
A corporation's job is to make money, and if necessary fuck you in the process. Just like a tiger's job is to eat, and if necessary kill you in the process. I'm okay with that. I like capitalism. A lot. I like tigers. A lot. That doesn't mean I trust corporations not to try to screw me and everyone next to me when negotiating. Nor would I trust a tiger not to attack me in the wild. Nor am I personally offended when they try.
All this to say that the Studios have not been negotiating in good faith, nor probably did they ever intend to. Why? They went tiger.
How Did We Get Here?
The negotiations started like this:
Writers: "We want residuals in internet downloads, let's start at a 2.5% for a negotiating point, an increase in our DVD residuals from .3% to a nominally less pathetic .6%, and a bunch of other bullshit that's on the table for negotiating purposes."
Studios: "How about ZERO PERCENT, not only of the new stuff but we also redefine existing residuals so that you won't get any of those, either? Oh yeah, and here are some other rollbacks, all financially punitive and some actually morally objectionable!"
Tiger.
Right before the strike, when the Studios realized that the Guild was actually serious this time and was about to announce the results of a Strike Vote, they took the residual revamps off the table. (Pardon me for referencing Artful Writer all the time, but he is indeed the best, most thorough commentator on the subject on the Web right now.)
This is one of the points where I respectfully disagree with Craig. Some people took this as an offer to negotiate. I, like many others, saw it as "Fine, we won't rape and murder you. We agree only to murder you. Now, it's your turn to give up a deal point."
Yeah. Let me get right on that.
Tiger.
(Sidebar: Craig is generally a conservative, by the way, and this reminds me of my maxim on American politics: "Liberals have an irrational childlike faith in the government. Conservatives have an irrational childlike faith in corporations. Libertarians have an irrational childlike hatred of both.")
Then, at the last minute, after the Guild yanked a bunch of its proposals off the table, the AMPTP made it plain that they weren't going to budge at all on the one issue driving the entire strike, the internet download issue. That they would, indeed, go tiger over it.
The Studios Cannot Be Completely Off-Base Here, Can They?
The Studios' position on internet streaming is patently ridiculous. It is not "promotional" to show an entire episode, with commercials. Trailers are promotional. Clips are promotional. An entire episode, and again son, pay attention heah, with commercials --
-- with commercials --
-- WITH. COMMERCIALS. --
-- is a frikkin' rerun.
The Studios' position on "studying" the new media is equally as ridiculous, if only a wee less obviously so. They would like to take a few years, figure out how they're going to monetize the internet download system, and then come to a deal. As John Bowman reminded us in his opening remarks, that's exactly how we got hosed on DVD's. And the bitch of it is, we cannot let a bad deal on internet downloads become institutionalized as "facts on the ground", because once it is it is almost impossible to change. Even Craig -- not to demonize him -- but even a union stalwart like Craig considers the DVD increase a nonstarter because we've eaten the current rate for so long.
In my conversations about increasing DVD residuals and also even doing Direct to DVD TV series, I've had perfectly rational friends of mine look me right in the eye and say "Well, sure, the DVD business was booming for a while, but now DVD sales are flat" as an explanation to why asking for an increase now is unreasonable.
So let me understand this. Back when the income flow was expanding beyond everyone's wildest dreams and money was raining out of the sky (even though it took a while for those numbers to be reported), maybe then we would have been justified in asking for an increase. But now that DVD's are nothing more than a relatively steady income flow, growing at a mere 4% a year, generating a measly $16.4 billion (with a b) a year, we're insane to try to strangle this dying media format in its crib by asking for an extra .3%.
The appropriate response rhymes with "Snow me."
But this is the way it is, has been for a decade, and perfectly reasonable people shrug and want to move on. Because, hey, facts on the ground. Let me promise you: if we don't get a good rate on the next delivery industry, the same types of people will be shrugging twenty years from now at our poor share in the billions in downloadable content and insisting that we can trust the Studios on this new quantum brain transmission system. Let 'em study it for a few years ...
What's more, the whole "study the situation" tomfoolery doesn't resemble anything I've seen work in the free market. They have stated that they need they need the flexibility of not paying residuals in order to experiment with digital models. Why are they "experimenting"? Well, in theory, to find the digital model that is the most efficient and most profitable. Aces. A system that will work flawlessly even though they've developed it without a chunk of its operating costs in place.
Remember the EEBC? The Everyday Extrapolated Bullshit Comparison? That is, if an exotic situation properly translated into the same context in your everyday life seems like bullshit, it is bullshit. Now, if your brother said he was going to open a bar and see how it went without paying for any alcohol or hiring bartenders or figuring out the cost of a liquor license, and then if that succeeded he'd add the booze and personnel and get the paperwork nailed down, you'd rightly think he was an idiot. Studios say the same thing annnnnd ...
Now, are billion-dollar multi-national corporations idiots? Generally, no. The alternative is ...
... Tiger. "Go ahead, human pal, look over there for food. We're just chilling over here in the petting zoo. No, no, nothing going on. We promise if there's any meat to be found, we'll share it. Honest."
Or to reference our previous metaphor: the cake is a lie.
In Which I Agree With the AMPTP
Now, there is one place in which my geekery allows me to fall into step with the AMPTP's general attitude toward electronic sell-through. They stated:
…no further movement is possible to close the gap between us so long as your DVD proposal remains on the table. In referring to DVDs, we include not only traditional DVDs, but also electronic sell-through — i.e., permanent downloads. As you know, we believe that electronic sell-through is synonymous with DVD.
First off, notice the conspicuous absence of streaming, or broadcast on the web, in there. The one place they are making advertising dollars, they don't want to go defining that, quite yet ...
Anyways, some people freaked. After all, "DVD" is an acronym with a literal meaning. It means discs. Physical production of said discs. Overhead. Internet distribution has an entirely different economy --
-- that we should ignore. Because, frankly, tying residual deals into the specific economies of distributive technologies is demonstrably dumb. It's what got us into the mess with DVD's, as a matter of fact. The actual economics of the original specific home video delivery technology -- VHS originally -- were hazy, so we took a flier on the supposed profit margin. As technology advanced, overhead dropped, profits grew, we got hosed.
I, nothing more than an avid hobbyist, can reach into my internet community of smart folk and industry insiders and pull out a half-dozen nascent delivery systems, any one of which might not fall under "home video" technically, or "broadcast", or "internet download" as they are precisely defined. What about kiosk-sold video tied to an updating branded hardware platform? Is something an "internet download" even if it's tied to a physical download location using wifi? What about a 4 Gig flash drive holding 13 episodes sold in stores? What if that 4 gig flash drive can be traded for other flash drives or even content switched on a subscription model? How about a "six episode" subscription model based around streaming, or if Comcast combines its cable modem with its pvr and then goes to an a la carte pay per episode fee, but the episodes and movies are dumped directly onto your pvr hard drive ....
A chunk of those aren't financially feasible, by the way, nor even work quite the way they're described, but you get my point. We're all writing for the box set now. Substitute "unimaginable near-future delivery tech" for "box set", and the statement is universalized. Although I know nothing about the inner workings of the studios, I can certainly see why, knowing what they know about tech, they went for the controversial definition:
1.) Writers have a shitty deal on DVD's, the current home video tech.
2.) Permanent downloads would be the new home video tech.
3.) If we define old home video tech = new home video tech, then
4.) Old Shitty deal = new shitty deal!
Bonus round:
5.) In the future, state every new tech = old tech, therefore
6.) Every new deal = old shitty deal! Forever!
If I were a stockholder in one of those companies, I'd actually appreciate that.
I say -- and this ain't gonna happen, but what the hell, everybody else is Monday-morning QB on this one -- I say we accept that definition. Go platform free as long as we stay profit free -- that is, we do not tie residuals to profit, which is a dangerous precedent undermining our rights of authorship. Sure, we'll come way, way down from our original 2.5%. What's the halfway point between 2.5 and .3 ... 1.4% let's say we open at 1.2%. We cut our demand more than in half, for chrissake. Come on, that's more than reasonable. It's just that, since we're platform free, and you're the ones who argued DVD's are the same as sell-through, you also have to bring DVD's up to that number. No? Come one, how about you come up not even halfway to that point on DVD's, say %.5 or .6%? and we'll even notch new tech down to a nice round 1%?
Without a DVD bump of at least that much, by the way, I wouldn't make a deal. No. This puts me in the minority, but I'm a geek and in the same breath I can point out the multiple funky techs coming down the pike, I can also remind you that new technology is adopted slower than you think. 2006 was the first year DVD players outnumbered VCR's in America. 2006. And DVD players were really just a technological variant of the same viewing habits put in place in the 80's by VCR's. In the same way, although the iPod revolution seems shocking, it's conceptually not a big jump from Walkmen and mix tapes, just with different mediums. It was the technological culmination of entertainment habits evolving over twenty years, not some paradigm shift.
A paradigm shift, though, is what it will take to get people to completely merge their internet presence and their TV viewing. I've talked about this before, but for the majority of houses in America the TV is over here, and the computer is over there. The concept blurs for younger generations, but it's not gone. Add to that the less than stellar broadband penetration in the US, factoring in that the fat pipes necessary for a broadcast-like experience for many Americans just isn't there ... I'll leave out some black swan event like XBOX or Comcast waking up and realizing they could run entertainment, and make the fairly safe guess that it'll be ten to twenty years before fully digital downloadable material completely, culturally replaces DVD. I lean toward twenty, but let's say technology runs rampant, the US government get serious about building infrastructure (heh heh heeee), oh, I'll spot you tennish. Say twelve.
You want to eat that shitty .3% DVD deal for the next twelve years that DVD's still the fat pipe? For the medium that will increasingly be the one paying your bills? Good for you.
What Will Probably Happen?
We do indeed settle for that .3% and get a not-too-horrible deal on internet downloads. After at least four months of lost lives, blown mortgages, bankruptcies, and network television probably losing another 10% of its viewership. But there's a reason that studio entertainment system is rotting away, and decisions like this -- forcing a strike out of short-sighted greed -- are symptomatic of larger problems. If and when things do indeed get really desperate for these guys, rather than just "not as insanely profitable as expected, but still more so than last year", then you'll really see the blood and marrow on the streets.
That's why some of us talk about new distribution channels, open source film-making, new financing models ... but for those who just write, whose gift, craft and years of hard work allow them to tell stories to the audience, take viewers away for that little sliver of time ... they deserve fair share of the fruits of their authorship. Residuals pay their bills, their mortgages, and allow them to continue writing, continue striving to create the successes which in turn create more jobs for other writers, below-the-line workers and even suited humans.
Moral issues aside -- fair residuals mean more working writers, more working writers mean more product, more product means more physical production jobs, media sales, corporate profits and shareholder value. That's what we're striking for.
110 comments:
>>>Moral issues aside -- fair residuals mean more working writers, more working writers mean more product, more product means more physical production jobs, media sales, corporate profits and shareholder value. That's what we're striking for.
There it all is.
Good luck.
I have said it before, and I will keep saying it, if SAG and DGA want to make sure they get their shit taken care of, they will come to work and sit down. And IATSE should do it out of principal (even though I can't tell you how man times I have heard IATSE members talk badly about the WGA and the strike; but you better believe some of them are the first to say "union this" and "union that" when they want something).
Also, the Teamsters should halt trucks all together. The studios would be at the table fast to make sure deals got done.sa
*(Sidebar: Craig is generally a conservative, by the way, and this reminds me of my maxim on American politics: "Liberals have an irrational childlike faith in the government. Conservatives have an irrational childlike faith in corporations. Libertarians have an irrational childlike hatred of both.")*
I'm not really sure what libertarians you're hanging out with, but in my experience, they're the ones who have an irrational childlike faith in corporations. Conservatives are the ones who have an irrational childlike faith in both, and think that the world would be a grand place if only somebody could figure out a way to merge the power of the two.
Oh were my ramblings so coherent and bang on...well said.
It's funny to see the debate about the new media being waged with terms and words that are years behind the technological curve and the reality of the internet today.
The studios want additional years to study the medium while they try their hardest to make the internet obey to their decade old distribution methods and cursing at the kids not getting off their lawn.
Looking at the music labels you see this is not an isolated condition of a single industry and it boggles the mind of any outsider with even a modicum of technical understanding seeing the glacial pace at which these institutions adopt.
For someone worrying about getting food on the table it must be agonizing.
The appropriate response rhymes with "Snow me."
Word up, yo.
Here's the deal, though: I'm not a writer. I'm a consumer. I get great joy out of my teevee. I'm one of those frightening creatures of the night; I'm a fangirl.
How can I support you guys during the strike?
Rogers, I'm about to donate to Fisher House, so sorry for emptying your pockets a little when you may need every penny [but What Hey! at least you'll have health insurance up here].
I'm doing it as a reaction to Malkin's plea to donate to Valour-IT [a worthy charity, from all accounts]. It made me want to donate to someone, but not so she could use it as a political bludgeon.
Well stated, and anybody who's confused about the issues, say... THE PRESS... should take a gander. Just one comment about the "rich writer" angle. One way to stop that tag from sticking is if y'all stop talking about your mortgages. Seriously, the actual middle class writers in this Guild haven't plucked the mortgage cherry yet. I keep friggin' downsizing apartments. Regarding Mazin's blog, since he is so high profile maybe people wouldn't be blathering about how rich we all are if Mazin wasn't over there asserting that he and the other wealthy bastids were paying for the strike and subsidizing the rest of us. I think we all need to realize now that since we're on strike, we're all in the public eye. Let's use it correctly, I say. And John, thanks for the earlier blog shout-out. Much appreciated!
In addition to asking, "How does a consumer support the strike?", I was wondering how this affects projects you're currently in production on. Steve Carell, for example, walked off the set of 'The Office'...is this affecting your work on film and TV in a non-writing capacity?
bravo rodgers. excellently reasoned. residuals are life.
one of my neighbors outside of vegas was a big cat handler. he had several famous cats. like the lion that was used in the mgm grand show jubilee twice a night.
he was at my place one afternoon and when he took off his shirt before going into the pool i saw the double claw scars that went deep, all the way down his back. i asked about them and he said if you spend time around the big cats there will always be the day where you end up on the menu.
it's a good thing to try and keep the issues from becoming personal. it will help you stay sane.
This whole issue has made me think both sides are screwed in the end. With the digitization of media the entertainment industry has signed its own death warrant, as digital information demands to be free. Nearly all the success stories of the internet are from companies or programs that have set up a channel to deliver free content. This leaves only one way for an entertainment company to generate revenue, advertising, but I think most people find advertising on the internet annoying and will always find ways to circumvent it. Just as TIVO has eroded advertising on broadcast TV, I'm sure there will be a service or program that strips out advertising from digital downloads. I think this is why the entertainment corporations have stood ground on this issue, as they know their days of profit are coming to an end and they want to wring every last dollar out of this dying behemoth while they can.
Personally, I am conflicted here. Clearly the residuals issue is a big deal and 30 basis points is unreasonable for DVD sales.
That having been said, I think that the Union bears some of the responsibility. Once you enter a union into a situation, any hope of collaborative solutions ends. The entire framework becomes us vs them. The situation moves from a discussion about how to expand the market and designing situation where each party can benefit, to a zero sum game where the gains of one party come solely at the expense of the other.
From what I see, the distribution channels and business models are changing and adapting to those changes required flexible and innovative approaches from all involved. (I want to note that I am not using flexible as code for 'screw the writers'). However, from my study of unions, flexible and innovative are not what unions are about.
So, while the studios went tiger, so did the union.
In other news, Friedman has returned!
http://hucksblog.blogspot.com/
1) DVDs are still worth fighting for. Any growth over 3% annually is.
2) The amount of people who don't have broadband access is staggering. We lag so far behind the rest of the world in this respect, we should all be writing to congress.
3) Look at how Parlophone is going to distribute the new Radiohead boxed set. Digital download vs. actual cds vs. an icon-shaped flash drive. And the flash drive costs the most! Granted, it's a limited edition and a small-market case study, but it's interesting to note where this is going.
RE: Unions going tiger...
My experience is no one even bothers to form a union until a need is proven. Things are better for everyone all the way around when unions aren't necessary. When the large entities with all the power, though, show a propensity for going tiger, some kind of strategy is needed.
While in Yellowstone last summer, rangers there told me that bison are rather unusual in that when they are attacked, they will stand as a herd to protect the calves rather than simply scatter and let each to their own.
When unions are necessary and when they respond, I see them not as 'going tiger', but rather as 'going bison'.
The arguments stated and reported here are eloquent. I wish the writers well.
Kimm
I am in awe of this post -- informative, witty, superbly reasoned and quoting Chris Rock. Bravo, sir!
Kimm,
That was wonderful. "Going bison" as a response to "going tiger." I...can't say anything worthy of the metaphor.
p.s. Roger's post of kinda okay (read: made of awesome), too.
Here's a puzzle:
If a bunch of people pool their capital and form an entity that speaks with a single voice and negotiates from a position of unity, that seems like a natural right of capital and nobody finds this in any way remarkable.
And if a bunch of laborers pool their labor and form an entity that speaks with a single voice and negotiates from a position of unity, there's much weeping and rending of cloth and demands that they explain themselves and how they reconcile their behavior with capitalism.
How come to some people it's only "capitalism" if the side with the more expensive clothes has all the power?
laertes,
There is no problem with labor forming a union as long as to become employed in that field an individual does not have to join the union. So I ask, could someone become a staff writer and not join the union?
You can go get a Red, Aja, Mac Pro, and some Kino Flows for 5 digits these days and be rocking and rolling. Everyone from the BBC to the Coens edits on Macs using inexpensive interface hardware. I'm in Austin, not even that competitive of a rental market, and I can rent an RC crane and a pneumatic dolly for rates that are viable for even an individual.
Watch the credits of your favorite TV shows. Count the names in the crew credits. Restart your analysis.
In this post Matthew Yglesias writes:
And yet somehow Bush has managed to recenter the American political debate so that an idea that would have seemed shocking ten years ago -- waging aggressive unilateral warfare against countries that haven't attacked us or anyone else -- is now meekly accepted by all as a vital part of the toolkit.
Which reminded me of the situation with DVD residuals. And of, "Ok, we won't rape and murder you, we'll just murder you. Now it's your turn to make a concession."
Wow. That's one of the most articulate and intelligent things I've read in a while. Nicely said.
I was supportive of the strike from the beginning, but I had no idea the producers were also trying to limit residuals to shows in profit. I'd say that's incredible chutzpah, but incredible chutzpah seems to be SOP with the Hollywood suits.
I still remember reading, long, long ago, an article by Mario Puzo explaining how Hollywood accounting works and why you never accept a percentage of the net. Because there is no net, ever.
I will ask, along with other commenters, how an ordinary viewer can support the strike.
John:
I'm about to ask what could be considered the stupidest eff-ing question ever but I ask it in the name of clarity. I'm getting ready to write my own post on the necessity of the strike and I just want to make sure I have my facts straight.
That four cents per DVD. Is that four cents for each credited writer or four cents split between all credited writers?
Please chalk it up to being an outsider looking in.
I'd like to address this idea that unions, in and of themselves, are somehow part of the problem here. They aren't. No way. No how.
As you're seeing, the goal of the artificial organism known as a corporation is to maximize profit. That's it. Not to look pretty. Not to make friends.
Profit. Maximize.
That's it.
This goal is met in a number of ways, the most obvious being producing something and selling it to a lot of people for more than it costs to manufacture .
It's a fairly simple model, easy to follow and, if not benign, more or less neutral. But, of course, Maximize Profit has no coda. It has no addenda or provisos limiting the means of maximization.
That means no healthcare. That means slave wages (Yes, agriculture and textile industries, I'm looking at you). That means 16, 18, 20 hour work days and six-day work weeks. That means no safety protocols. That means screwing every subcontractor out of every possible penny. Every penny, every contractor, every time. That is the meaning of maximization of profit.
Anybody who says otherwise is selling something.
Folks in the Industrial Revolution had a nice taste of corporations maximizing profit without restriction. It wasn't, under any possible definition, fun. I have a feeling kids in Bangladesh and elsewhere are getting a nice taste right now.
Unions exist specifically to make, shake and, if necessary stuff Lucy Van Pelt's weapon of choice down the throat of that organism that means to screw you into oblivion, not take you out and then hit you with the bill for the date it did go on.
Without it, raped and pillaged. That is what maximization of profit means.
I'm not in the WGA. This strike is kicking the shit out of a stack of deals that I worked my ass off to get in place and it's only Day Two.
But fair is fair. And if there's one thing I absolutely HATE it's a bully.
Even if I never get in (unlikely, but for the sake of this rant) the benefits enjoyed by people in non-union jobs- shorter work week, health provisions, pensions etc.- are the DIRECT RESULT of union activity. I hope nobody thinks those things were handed over out of the goodness of the fictional corporate heart. If so, consider yourselves disabused.
So, while it's kicking my ass today, when it's done, union or non-union, the going rate for my services will be set by whatever deal is made. As will the perks and negotiated points I and my reps can go for.
Ripples in the pond, baby. Ripples in the MFing pond.
When contending with enormous, amoral, voracious, immortal beings, you damned well better have an army at your back if you hope to survive, much less win.
That is what a union is.
I think I can kind of understand why the executives would see streaming video as more promotional than anything else. It's probably the justification they used to start streaming in the first place, as I can't imagine it making any money. (If Youtube hasn't yet figured out how to make a profit out of online video, I can't imagine how the networks would be)
Re: Anonymous
I think I can kind of understand why the executives would see streaming video as more promotional than anything else. It's probably the justification they used to start streaming in the first place, as I can't imagine it making any money. (If Youtube hasn't yet figured out how to make a profit out of online video, I can't imagine how the networks would be)
Well, I've been watching Chuck through NBC's streaming video player since I don't have television service but I think Chuck is awesome. Each episode is presented with "limited commercial interruptions" by various companies, which means that, to use the last episode I viewed as an example, I got my episode of Chuck along with five ads for DirecTV.
So, I would imagine that the networks, at least the ones that do it this way, make money on the "new media" broadcasts the same way they make money on the regular broadcasts, by selling ad time to other companies.
Is it just as profitable? Probably not. Then again, remember that Chuck already aired once on television, complete with ads. Then the network gets to turn around and show it again online, with even more ads. The cost for showing each episode twice, once on television and once online, is probably (and I'm just guessing here) negligible, which means that even if they aren't selling as many ads for the web broadcast, it still ends up being the frosting on an already-rich slice of cake (factual cake, in this instance).
I guess what I'm saying is, if the entities are so voracious and amoral, why contend with them at all? It's not like they're trying to monopolize and price-fix the availability of a certain service...
...no, that would be the union.
Isn't this exactly what, say, the RIAA is/was engaged in? Right down to price-fixing on CDs?
Okay, Ombligatron, I'm not going to quote you at length -- that would be exhausting -- but it's a fair question that comes from your limited experience.
First off -- unions don't adapt well to change? Yeah, because the american car corporations sure turned on a dime. Seriously. That's hardly an issue with unions. Big American Establishments of all ilks don't like change.
Unions are there to deal with the facts on the ground. If the facts change, sure, but even then in Ideal Land some guys will get greedy, and start exploiting people, and it'll be time for some sort of organization... unions, my libertarian pal, "price-fix services" to make sure people actually get paid for services rendered. It's not unions that are keeping cheap entertainment from getting made. They need to charge a set price because they won't see any back-end. You want to convince the networks and studios to share that back-end, you go right ahead. That's whatwe're trying to do. Indeed, many of us make individual deals to cut down our up front money, to make production cheaper, for a cut of the profits. Of course, the the studios cook the books and there's never profit. But that's another discussion.
But to your main point. Short answer -- some of us are indeed trying to do exactly what you describe. Including using off the shelf equipment, different talent, etc. There's even alternate financing coming into play, but you have to understand that this is ALL NEW. And as far as wanting the writers to take the lead here, you're essentially asking people who've spent their lives learning to succeed at one specific insanely difficult skill to retrain themselves on the fly rather than, oh, just get some sort of fair deal from the fuckers who are supposed to be paying them and are already profiting off their work.
The internet and D2DVD is what will make the shift possible, in the end. You are seeing -- and I have written about on this blog, occasionally -- the birth pangs of such a movement. Let's just say that in yes, in Ideal Land, every writer becomes an owner-producer. I think it's the way of the future.
But it takes craploads more money to produce content on a regular basis than you seem to understand, and distribution as is is far, far funkier than you think. Even working with some of the smartest guys who already have money to play with, it is slow goddam going. I have seen it first hand. Even internet distribution requires publicity, that requires money ... Also, American audiences in particular are used to a level of image quality -- and frankly the celebrity culture we've built up over the last half-century ... plus as I said, the conceptual leap to internet as home media really isn't complete yet ... not to mention there are many, many talented writers like, say David Milch, who would be socially incapable of raising the sort of capital you're discussing even for the cheapest of shoots. You liked Arrested Development? You think Mitch Herwitz could have gotten to be that good a writer without years of working on other, established shows, and then gone out and gotten actors that damn funny, all on his own as Johnny No-Name writer with a dream?
Indeed, it would make more sense if those writers who needed to focus on, say, an incredibly difficult and time-consuming craft could count on some other business partner to specialize in the job skills necessary to raise money for pro ... oooooooohh.
There is no problem with labor forming a union as long as to become employed in that field an individual does not have to join the union. So I ask, could someone become a staff writer and not join the union?
By that definition, you don't believe in unions. Don't split hairs.
Not impugning the fact that you have way more experience than me (or most of us) in this, but the essence of the question is still the same. If the "employer" is trying to fuck you, why do you work for them?
Because, and I will say this again, they are the only game in town if you want to write serialized television, or make movies that will be released in the normal distribution chain -- FOR NOW. In order to make a TV series, you need 13 episodes of money. A really, really cheap one-hour scripted TV series shot at the lowest minimum television quality for the American public and produced on a reasonable time table will run you just under a million dollars an episode for anything other than a domestic tale involving local actors and standing locations. Let's say you can get that down to a half-million dollars. Because you are not jut a damn fine writer, but also the greatest producer in history.
That's six and a half million dollars to raise on your own, never mind exactly how you're going to recoup that as there's no advertiser who'll buy ads on your show, since you cant prove you even have an audience yet. And exactly why would somebody invest their hard-earned money in such an unproven venture in the first place?
Assuming you get everybody else, top quality actors -- but with no following, of course, because actors with a following demand higher salaries, as determined by their free market value -- and crew people, who will work for a piece of the nonexistent back end. And feed their family on ... something in the meantime. All while the established companies do their best to crush you.
(This was a variant of the model for straight-to-syndication shows, actually. Those are dead now because the free market dictated that they die.)
On a more personal level, gut punch level, one failure and 99% of the population who might try this would be financially wiped out. For life.
As I've said, it will change, slowly, by co-opting evolving parts of the current infrastructure and by taking advantage of new technologies and attitudes. But to ask "Why are you working for them NOW?" is kind of ridiculous. If we do not work for them, then 99% of us are unemployed. Period.
the unionization of the American workforce was at 13.5%, downward trending. Are 86.5% of the rest of us (I'm in the states too) not getting paid for services rendered? In the rest of the world, even in creative and intellectual property realms, if the IP holder is offered a bad deal, the IP holder doesn't take it. It's called competition, and that's the way a free market, services-based, innovation economy works. Well, except for Norway, but what the FUCK is up with those guys?!
First off, the other 86.5 % are covered by fair employment laws. Laws derived from gains made by unions in the past, might I add. Our status as contract workers/ self-employed writers makes those laws generally useless.
And your hypothetical IP holder goes off and tries to make a better deal. The problem is, in Hollywood, ALL THE COMPETITORS WORK TOGETHER. If I develop a better computer chip as an engineer, I can indeed go start a new company. And take ten years to build it up. Are you suggesting every writer in Hollywood now either stop writing and go form independent production companies and become experts in raising money and distribution, or they have no choice but to accept being cheated what is theirs under the law? Seriously?
Regardless of the condescension in your last paragraph, such a model is not unknown to me, as an idealist, and that's what I'm proposing. Smaller teams of people, including backers that might actually believe in the creative merits of an individual project, fund and distribute their own content. There are plenty of creative types who've gotten lucky and struck it big, and have the cash to back production. but they don't, and it's because they don't want to assume the risk. so they choose to let someone else assume the risk. Fair enough, but the someone else is going to dictate the terms.
They do all the time. That's what those little production companies exist for. There are literally dozens of them. They do back projects, and like 90% of entertainment projects, they fail. And again, we're talking way, way more money than even the average rich dude has. And, AGAIN, the distribution channels do not as yet exist for anything but the smallest budget material.
No one, in any way, is forcing you to write for these guys, so why do you feel like you can dictate the terms to them? If it's a bad deal, sell the script somewhere else or roll your own. The union response to undesirable terms is to stop work. The free market response is to work harder, and compete.
Now, I'm going to dump a shitload of snark on you here, so I apologize ahead of time.
Really, the free market response is to work harder and compete? At no point during the TWENTY YEARS of competing with other standups in shitty one nighters until I was good enough to get a deal, competing with thousands of other writers for gigs, competing with other projects in development, and competing with other shows on the air -- and if at any point if I was second best I was FUCKING UNEMPLOYED -- did I master that thought.
Okay, I'm back. Sorry, but I have a blanket rule to spank anyone who cuts that attitude here.
Now, you're a little unclear on how the free market is actually working here. You see UNION, and assign it the villain role.
You cannot sell the script somewhere else. Period. There are, in the end, seven media companies that control all mainstream entertainment distribution in America. Period. Which is why we sometimes go get foreign money -- who almost always insists on a domestic distributor, in the end, before they'll greenlight and release the funds.
Do you think this situation just happened? Do you not think a half-century of free-market competition and evolution weren't involved in bringing us to this precise dilemma, which probably implies there are some pretty heavy market forces at play weighing behind the status quo?
If you've read your Adam Smith, he actually discusses several situations in which the invisible hand doesn't work. This is a variation on one of them.
I'm not dogging you out; I like your work, and at least from your blog, I even like you as a person. I really hope that the outcome of this strike isn't that you get another .3%, but that you and deep-pocket chums like Devlin start releasing your own shit that you have even more control of.
And what do you think we were doing in Chicago? Did you see any mention of a studio involved? Trust me, a LOT of people are looking over our shoulder at this TV show. If we pull this off, champagne bottles will be popped in some rooms, while weeping and gunshots will go off in others.
The point is -- yeah, we need to get to your Ideal Land model.
I blog continually about such developments. But I also know the limitations involved. It will take baby steps -- even the most daring investors will only move in baby steps. Let's leave aside what you're implying here, which is if we don't essentially abandon the status quo and strike out on our own -- and destroy a multi-billion dollar industry, making thousands of middle class production humans instantly financially bereft along the way -- we're somehow subverting capitalism. IN THE MEANTIME, on our decade-long road to Ideal Land, we need to make sure our rights -- as stated under international copyright law, not to mention just a sense of fair play -- are respected by people making billions and billions of dollars off our work. That they pay us enough to keep food on the table an mortgages paid -- and that is EXACTLY what is at stake with that .3% residual -- while SOME of us who've got the luck, the training, the time and the money go try to change the system.
Having been involved in those fist-on-table conversations with the monkey king on a couple of occasions I will say that the FUTURE is a very rosy place indeed for multitasking, multidextrous artisans of all stripes.
We're almost there on the production end. Almost. But the distribution end is wobbly at best.
There are some interesting models out there. Tyler Perry seems to have nailed the one I liked best but DVD is going to die just as CDs are. Some of the web shows are at or near pro quality production-wise.
But they still haven't cracked turning display into revenue. Not quite yet.
So, while we wait and plan and build the Next, we still have work and live off the Current. That means this creaky decades-old system. that means business vs creative.
that means unions vs corporations.
they need us. we need them. balance should be obvious and easy to achieve but market forces push us back into the bloody arena every time. Every time.
The idea that a pro screenwriter can just pack up her kit and go west if she doesn't like it is just not in line with reality. This is an extremely specialized skill we're talking about. One that is dependent upon others using equally specialized skills to see work realized.
I have a very small career as a writer of prose. That form of writing DOES essentially work the way you describe. A stack of hopefuls send out work to a relatively small number of potential markets and the last man or woman standing gets the gigs. It's fairly bloodless.
But "Hollywood" ain't wired like that (or any widget maker in existence) and learning not only to write to spec in this rarified space but to LIVE to spec within the arbitrary (and gut wrenchingly brutal) warrens that have been created here-- well. It ain't widget making and it ain't novel writing. Nothing like.
Even though I consider what we do inherently gladiatorial, I shiver when somebody starts promoting the so-called Free Market and its forces as some sort of panacea for anything that economically ails.
No.
We HAD totally free markets before. They led to the conditions that necessitated the creation of unions. That way lies madness. Don't go up the stairs, Sydney. You KNOW Ghostface is waiting.
We've had unions long enough that the propaganda machine has been able to sell those out there of the short-memory a bill of goods as to there being a need for them. (or not being, I guess. It's late. sorry.)
Who is making this assertion? How is the assertion being fed to the public? Which quarter stands to benefit if the general populace begins to hold unions in the same low regard they seem to hold lawyers? Follow the money, Bubba. It's a short walk.
All that said, I'm not anti-corporation any more than I'm anti-virus or anti-crocodile. Everything has its place.
But, when you go walking in a swamp, you take the appropriate protection. When dealing with powerful, deep-pocketed employers, you need a union because, Jackson, the Law ain't gonna cut it for Lone Writer #20769.
The law, in this instance, is a whore who only gives group rates.
Without collective bargaining, you have nothing. You have Share Cropping and illegal migrant work and human trafficking.
THAT's the "free" market.
Hey,
I sent you an email but I wanted to repost here in case there's a spam filter or some nonesense. Anyway, I suggested the idea of trying to organize all the local SA Goons to picket at the same location during the same shift, photographing it and putting the pics online to try and kick up some more internet press magic. What do you think?
By that definition, you don't believe in unions. Don't split hairs.
I don't believe in any organization that can only exist through forced membership. If the union is such a great deal, then why not give writers the option to join, rather than mandating membership?
Why should it be mandatory?
Because you get to share the fruits of the labor. Of course, there's an alternative - which has been historically ugly. That goes:
Everyone may choose whether or not they belong to the union. But when the union negotiates benefits, you don't get them. Instead, you have to negotiate on your own. You, single, against the corporation.
Most people are lousy negotiators - even the ones who believe they are good ones. And even the ones who ARE decent are going to be negotiating at a disadvantage. They're going to be facing not their boss but an employee of the boss who is trained and experienced. That negotiator is going to have the 'car salesman' tricks to hand - you know, 'Well, this looks like it might work, but I have to run it by the suits. You know how it is. You want to wait, or let me give you a call...?" They can afford to delay settlement when it's just you - one person is easy to replace (permanently or part-time), and the odds are you can't afford to NOT continue working while negotiating.
But hey, you don't want to belong? Great. Then don't whine when the group that did the work doesn't want to share what was earned.
"... and the little red hen baked the cake and asked, 'Who will eat this cake?' 'I will,' said the cat, the duck, the dog. 'No, no,' said the little red hen. 'I will do that too.' And she did."
Ombligotron--
The average american worker is not seeing a pay increase commensurate with increases in productivity. In fact, wages at the 5th decile have been stagnant, or slightly declining, since about 1978.
Unsurprisingly, this doesn't happen in the countries that have strong unions. Hope that answers your question about the rest of us being paid fairly.
And, if you'd like to see the references, you could start with: Top Heavy by Edward Wolff, The Inequality Paradox: Growth of Income Disparity edited by Auerbach and Belous (the Burtless and Smeeding piece here is particularly good), or The Real Worlds of Welfare Capitalism by Goodin et al.
And two points of contention on the rates of unionization in other countries: first, Japan may not have high rates of unionization, but they do have very, very strong informal wage setting policies. Business arrangements were simply never put into policy terms--it wasn't and isn't necessary. But they are unionized in all but name. They're a special case.
Second, France has very strong minimum wage laws and I'm sure has some sort of collective bargaining agreement. I can look into it more thoroughly if anyone is really interested--hell, it would even count as productive work for me.
So, while the numbers may look low they're misleading.
To support Redjack's contentions about unfettered capitalism: you should check out Polanyi's The Great Transformation. It's a classic on what happens when free market capitalism commodifies what should be uncommodifiable. Short answer--disaster.
And apologies for the double post, should have read to the end before writing that first one.
I'm going to say that people who look upon new media and new methods of distribution and content as a panacea are being naive in my book
You don't think large concentrations of wealth and manpower (i.e. corporations) aren't going to find ways to play the game in that arena? And that collective efforts (i.e. corporations) aren't going to be able to do things better than individuals?
Sure, you'll see new fortunes made, new players arise and old ones fade away, but the free market will see that collectivized efforts, organized concentrations of human and economic power will always beat disorganized individuals
My husband is a member of IATSE. We would really like to stand together with the writers. However, the timing of the writers strike is poor, selfish and self serving. We do think that they should be paid fairly for their work. However, by failing to wait for a few months until several of the other union agreements expire, they are weakening their strike and really, really hurting their crews. Most of the other guilds (IATSE included) have "no strike" provisions in their contracts. This means that if they do not continue to work they are subject to the immediate and permanent loss of their jobs. So that even if the WGA gets a satisfactory resolution and goes back to work, the crew member remains without a job. If they honor the picket line then they cannot receive unemployment benefits. Since crews get no residuals they have to work consistently to get paid - no matter how good or creative their past work has been. It is ridiculous of the WGA to expect crew to support them under these conditions. If they had waited until they had the strength of the other unions behind them then the effect would have been much stronger and this whole thing could have ended much sooner. The writers are imposing an injury upon the crew that will slowly but surely bleed them to death and cost them their homes. The notion is good...the timing is stupid.
The argument that without the writers there would be no show means nothing to me because without the rest of the crew no show would ever make it to the screen. Everybody is important to the product and if we truly are brothers than the WGA should have considered this!
... fair residuals mean more working writers, more working writers mean more product, more product means more physical production jobs, media sales, corporate profits and shareholder value. That's what we're striking for.
I buy what you write. As a buyer, I'm motivated to buy interesting or engaging content that is easy to access, that I can stop, start and replay when I want to. For my world, the tv/vcr was over there, the computer over here. That soon ends.
My kids rarely watch television. Except for an occasional SpongeBob to kill time before going to grandma's, they simply don't watch television anymore. The two mediums for content are DVD and YouTube. These are the formats for new music, new movies, new entertainment. The concept of "gotta get home to watch 'Friends'" is as alien to them as sticking a fork in the kitten to have fun.
Writers, stand pat. The tigers are going to be mighty hungry if they don't learn to change hunting habits and diet. Check out The Eagles new album for an example.
>>>Top guild sources tell me they were “deliberately duped” by the moguls in a backchannel deal to bring the guild back to the bargaining table Sunday. They say the lure was a promise by two Big Media CEOs -- Peter Chernin and Les Moonves -- that, if the writers gave up their DVD residual demands, then the producers would respond by improving the formula on the central sticking issue of Internet downloads for movies and television.
>>>The writers say they kept up their end by dropping their DVD demands
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/deals-lies-backchannelling-why-this-is-a-bigger-mess-now-than-ever-before/
WGA needs to get rid of those leading the charge! This is the early 1980s all over again!
Everyone may choose whether or not they belong to the union. But when the union negotiates benefits, you don't get them. Instead, you have to negotiate on your own. You, single, against the corporation.
That is a fine solution that works in almost every other industry. I am perfectly capable of evaluating the work required to complete a project and the compensation being offered. If I think that equation is fair, I take the job, if it doesn't, I walk. If a talented writer can't find any projects that are worth taking, then it is time to look for another job in an adjacent industry.
I still do not see the problem with allowing that choice. Why should the union care if you opted out and got screwed? Wouldn't that help them in their marketing message to future writers? "See what happened to [insert name], if you do not join, it will happen to you too", sounds pretty powerful.
Or is it that the unions realize that the only way for them to continue to exist is through forced membership.
Ombligatron:
Last point first: sure, Polanyi is not universally accepted these days but he's still widely read for a reason. You're right, too, that he should be read in the context in which he wrote. Even given that context, though, I think he makes some interesting arguments about the nature of capitalism, and the limitations that (he argues, at least) must be placed on it. And it should probably be noted that no advanced industrial democracy has unfettered capitalism these days. It's less fettered in the US, but certainly not truly free.
And one minor technical detail before moving on--it's a lower Gini coefficient in the Scandinavian countries. The higher the Gini the higher the level of income inequality, the lower the Gini the lower the level. It's a minor detail, but an important one to keep in mind, for anyone reading in this literature.
The linkage between unionization and equality isn't determinant, but I think most social scientists accept that it's there. A good review of this literature, one that makes this point better than I can, is from Morris and Western, "Income Inequality at the Close of the 20th Century", in the Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1999): 623-657. If you have JSTOR access it can be found here: http://zp9vv3zm2k.scholar.serialssolutions.com/?sid=google&auinit=M&aulast=Morris&atitle=Inequality+in+Earnings+at+the+Close+of+the+Twentieth+Century&id=doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.623
Does this suggest that we can't have income equality without strong unions? No, but it does suggest that strong unions do help to generate equality. Of course, the other pathways--high levels of taxation on income and wealth at the high end of the economy, and very generous social policies seem untenable in the US. Unions have at least had an effect in the past, and can conceivably have one in the future.
Personally, I'm not holding my breath either way. Although inequality is a growing problem in the US, I think the eventual policy solutions will be geared towards increasing wages at the low end of the labor market, with modest tax increases at the top of the income distribution. But that's another story entirely (one that advocated for in Egalitarian Capitalism, which now that I think about it, probably addresses the union story too).
Even if I don't think unions will make a difference again in the US, I still support the ones that are around. Who knows, I could be wrong, and Andy Stern and SEIU will make a come-back and generate higher wages for those at the bottom of the income distribution.
>>>If we pull this off, champagne bottles will be popped in some rooms, while weeping and gunshots will go off in others.
You give great quote, Rogers.
Adam Smith needs revision.
Unions are good for America (and other countries) because the things they fight for, such as better wages and working conditions, tend to become standard for everyone. A rising tide raises all boats.
Ombligotron-
Other countries, particularly in Europe, have a smaller percentage of unions. You gave France as an example. They have socialized health care, 35 hour or less work weeks, and get 6 weeks of vacation per year. These are government-set rules. I'm not making an endorsement of socialism, but studies have shown that workers are more effective with increased time for r&r.
I find it amusing that you gave an offhand mention of how Silicon Valley raises money for start-ups. Are you familiar with how the venture capital process works? They don't call them velociraptors for nothing. Even when a company starts up and spins off (in say an academic environment), there's a reason they call it angel funding.
I want to have a drink and pound the table with Rogers and Redjack.
The Entertainment Industry bears ZERO resemblance to any of the others because the product and the people on the assembly line work in a completely different and unique relationship to those other industries.
There IS no "adjacent industry" for the screenwriter to work in. That is a straw postulate. Not every screenwriter can write prose, not every prose writer can write comics, not every comics writer can write a screenplay. It is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor.
No one is FORCED to join the guild in any case. There are plenty of non-union productions going on all the time. As we speak.
If I want to make a TV show or film right now and have the cash to do