Why the Writers Strike was Doomed to Failure (And How We Can Win Next Time)
Read more strike coverage on the Huffington Post's writers' strike page.
The talks between the producers and the writers have broken off indefinitely. The smart money says the AMPTP is simply going to bypass the writers' guild and make a boilerplate deal with DGA. A deal they'd press on the WGA. Probably there'd be some "new media" monies. It's doubtful there would be any expansion of guild jurisdiction into internet content or reality programming.
So, then, the strike has failed. Failure, of course, was the only outcome for this strike.
It is not the result of lack of will or even rightness on the side of the writers, or the earnestness of the negotiating committee. I know several of the members. They are longtime friends, and some were at my wedding. I do not believe with any part of me they did not want what they believed was best for the greater membership: a fair share of the profit from that which we help create. And anyone who believes I'm somehow against the idea of getting all of us -- me included -- two cents or ten cents or a buck more a DVD or digital download either overestimates my ideology, or underestimates the level of my greed.
In fact, I would say it is my greed -- my desire to have all rather than some -- that leads me to declare the strike a failure.
Think about it. Think about why "we" strike. The rallying cry we hear ad nauseam is that "we won't let what happened twenty years ago happen again." That is to say; the strike "we" engaged in, the deals we made re: home video were failed ventures. That is the collective reckoning, though I doubt many even know what the bone of contention in the '88 strike was -- foreign residuals for one hour programming -- or how the creative provisions the WGA tried to force on the producers alienated the DGA.
And, so, twenty years later "we" are back on the picket lines. And every three years "we" go back to the table to collectively bargain. And that right there; that phrase speaks to why this strike and every writers' strike will fail: the guild uses collectivism to seek a bargain. Why should we get a bargain when we can buy the store?
In 2006 the total earnings of the working membership of the guild was $905 million dollars. Our residual income alone was $264.3 million dollars. Currently every working member of the guild is compelled to cede 1.5 percent of their gross, pre-tax income to the uild. While in the last year the guild has done a better job of handling money, it should be noted that in fiscal year 2006 the guild managed to turn that revenue into a $202,611 deficit.
There is more and better to be done with our money.
Let's say the guild was to hit up its membership for an additional 1 percent of its gross income. Let's say the guild were to put that money into a fund to produce films. The guild would then own, or would have co-ownership of the negative with the film's author. And since "we" could make this film without interference from the studios, the film would of course be great. The guild, then, could take this great film and cut whatever distribution deal it pleased with whatever distributor -- old media or new -- with which it chose. And the deal would be made on our terms. And the film would remain ours. And project by project the revenue stream would continue to grow, and more films would be made and "we" would own them and eventually "we" would control the vast majority of content produced.
Or, studios would be forced to enter into similar authorship sharing agreements if they wanted to work with the best and brightest writers. They would have no choice because, as we all love to say, it all begins with the words on the page.
Of course, we would have to work out some kind of profit participation with all the other artisans in Hollywood because -- unlike the multi-nationals and conglomerates -- we would be beneficent with our wealth.
This is no fantasy, no act of a wild imagination (and yes, I borrow that line). Film festivals are sick with indies being made by individuals without a sliver of the experience, connections or access to cash "we" have.
And, what; five weeks into this strike? Factor in the lost wages, the wasted man-hours, we could be wrapping our first film by now.
Our film.
There is no substitute for ownership. Beyond my love of the craft, it is why I choose to ply my trade mostly in books, on the internet and in graphic novels: I own my shit.
And I will happily be the first to divert my guild dues to a film fund to own some of that, too. See if I'm kidding. One phone call from the "leadership" of the guild, and I'll put the check in escrow. Now.
I doubt the call will come.
Instead, "we" face down holidays and property taxes due and another three, four or more months without income.
For what?
For the opportunity to stand up and beg for the best bargain "we" can get? For the opportunity to remain as we were: sharecroppers on the media plantation? "We" can continue with this evolutionary change -- gathering together every three years to get our bargain. Or, we can make revolutionary change. In the wake of this failed strike there can be victory. Permanent victory, if the leadership has the meat to quit whipping up rallies and start marshaling manpower. Now, in this moment, is the time to make the choice that will truly secure the future for our heirs and us.
Ownership, or servitude? Which will it be?
Read more strike coverage on the Huffington Post's writers' strike page.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
What possesses you, honestly, to be such a non-stop pro-conservative gadfly?
Really?
You are now declaring the union you are still a member of to be a failure, while they're still in the middle of their biggest battle in years. Let's suggest for the sake of argument that all your points are right. This article couldn't have waited a bit, at least?
Woo.
I like Mr. Ridley's new tack as he continues to try to use his Jedi mind control on writers to give in to his point of view. First it was ridiculing the WGA and its leadership. Now it's appealing to the writer's innate sense of pride. Either way, his mantra is basically,"can we forget this strike so I can get back to work?" It's good to see he's even willing to pay money into escrow to end this. I'm sure his check's already in the mail.
In some ways this is now an old and non-controversial ideal- Pension Fund Socialism- applied in a new context. The pension funds of working people are the largest owners of American business. So by creating a fund, and then reinvesting it back into the industry, writers and other creative people could eventually own the studios. Unfortunately, the key word there is eventually. That would take a long time. At this point, do writers and other artists have that time? Further complicating the issue is the highly restrictive nature of WGA membership. Applying the concept of Pension Fund Socialism would require letting people stay in the Guild permanently once they got in, which is not the case today. Admission would probably have to be easier, too, just to swell the ranks enough to make the concept work. Would existing members agree to any of that, however? There is a real question. It should probably also be pointed out that the large pension funds have a spotty record of pushing progressive causes.
That's why I like the comments of the writer's strike; we don't have to wait for the strike to end to get blogs telling how the strike failed to better the striking worker's lot.
hey dude, i have been noticing your posts for a long time and today was struck enough to add you as "i'm a fan.." i have never added anyone before
i am in the finance industry and loved this post in particular
what you are planning makes total cents/ sense. All you have to do is proceed with this impetus and collect the clout and/or capital, as well as the professional "buffers" (lawyers, finance guys, etc.) to negotiate for a few opening "deals" and once your brand is established you have the position and opportunity to change the system from within.
don't even get me started on the IPO potential here. good stuff indeed!
~aloha
I hope John Ridley manages to motivate a sea change. If the producers don't want to play nice, screw them out of every scent. They may own the rights to the works of writers (books and comics and television series) but not to the ORIGINAL ideas that will always come from writers. Let's see how they like it.
I was just saying to a friend yesterday ... what the writers should do is start their own stations. Let the big networks see how long they can ride it out just showing crappy reality programs and American Gladiators in prime-time. Those don't have much of a shelf life, people will always want fresh dramatic and comedy programming.
I'm a great fan of unions but the writer's
real problem is, well, let's face it, most of
their work sucks. It's written to appeal to the lowest common denominator, panders to corporate and government propaganda, creates unrealistic expectations in their audience and promotes violence.
This is by far the best, most strategic piece you have ever written, John Ridley.
This 50-year-old mom thinks it's time to put the networks out of business. I've lately paid more attention to the viewing habits of myself, my husband and my pre-teenage daughter. We rarely watch our TV shows "live", We download everything from the internet to watch at our convenience. I'm very close to cutting off out cable access entirely since we rarely use it.
Yes. Let's run them out of business. The sooner the better.
John Ridley is best when he sticks to a safe subject like the writer's strike.
Let me understand, John.
You're a member of the WGA. You have happily accepted all the benefits of that union and the sacrifices made by others to provide you with those benefits.
Your union leadership is leading a work stoppage to attempt to win better compensation for the work that membership produces and you are now raising the white flag in a public forum?
I don't know if you should be called selfish or disloyal. I don't have a dog in this fight, but doesn't the idea of union membership have something to do with unity?
oh, please... the fantasies of the rich-but-d
Contrarian logic simply is boring and simple-minded,
I want to commend John Ridley for being a very public dissident voice. I suspect, five weeks in, that many writers are quietly questioning the strike. A strike is a powerful weapon, but one which loses its power the moment it's used.
My initial responses to all of Mr. Ridley's blogging has been similar to the shrill vituperations of the pro-unionistas. But this one gave me pause.
Not that I think there is any value in him undermining our strike by declaring it's defeat.
However, our struggle is unique to all other labor disputes. We are authors struggling to be recognized as... authors. That recognition would naturally enhance our value in the marketplace.
The public perception that we are responsible for the "drek" being produced by Hollywood needs to be addressed and re-focused. Every working writer knows that they submitted a better draft before the studio/network "improved" upon it.
The idea that we would hold ourselves apart from the industry as a body that better understands the value of a writer's work, to the point of producing one project a year, would greatly elevate our status in the industry.
Nobody, should believe the corporate canard that most movies lose money. That is according to their accounting practices.
A WGA produced film could easily pull A list actors in working for scale. They do it all the time for projects they believe in.
The WGA could pre-sell the foreign for the project and cover their costs. If the film does well - fantastic. On to the next.
I think there is nothing wrong with expanding the dialogue of screenwriters' value and exploring the true value of "authorshi
Perhaps the UAW should start manufacturing their own cars...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
