Six Arguments Against "Financial Core"

Today, John Ridley defended his decision to go Fi-Core in an Op-Ed for the Los Angeles Times. Both the tone and the content of Ridley's piece reek of a child taking his ball and going home. Of course, children learn very quickly that being alone with your ball sucks.

I don't really care about John Ridley personally. But I do care that there are people out there who agree with him, who think he just did something noble. Yes, people have rights. If you're walking down the street and you see someone being mugged you have a right to keep walking. But having a right isn't the same as doing the right thing.

Here are six reasons why going Financial Core is the wrong thing:

#1: The Writers Guild of America is a democratic institution. Leaders were elected and a strike authorization passed by majority vote. If you didn't vote for either I understand your frustration, but you're still a part of this democracy. I didn't vote for Bush, but I don't stage a coup or renounce my citizenship (though I'm often tempted).

#2: There is a "we." One commenter on Unitedhollywood.com wrote, "There is no 'we.' It's my name on my lease... on my bank account." True, but when you sell your first screenplay, see how much you get without the WGA minimum. And good luck with your screen credit. (And for those who say the credit system is flawed, I promise you, it's not as flawed as the old days when the studio decided who got credit.) Good luck getting more money for that "producer's polish" on your script. See you at the premiere! Oh, wait, without guild protections, you're not invited. All these protections -- and many more -- are ours only because other writers stood together and fought.

#3: Character is defined by the decisions you make in a crisis. True on the page, true in life. Walking a picket line in the first week wasn't so bad, right? A social experience for people used to working alone -- chanting, singing, dancing, churros, celebrities. But walk that line in the ninth week, the nineteenth week, walk it when you don't agree with your leadership but you know that solidarity is the only thing that allows collective bargaining to work. That's character.

#4: Trust what you know, not what you don't. We voted because we know that any future without new media residuals is completely unacceptable. That we know. Have our leaders made a few missteps? Oh, yes. Are Animation and Reality going to get horse-traded away? Probably. Have the studios offered an acceptable residual rate? No. Has the AMPTP been successful in the past at weakening the guild through shrewd negotiating, propaganda, taunting, baiting, deep pockets, and patience? Yes.

#5: The AMPTP, like any political campaign, is constructing a narrative. In the beginning they said that new media was a non-starter. Now they say the WGA NegComm is more interested in jurisdiction and should focus on new media. Why would they do that? Because this thing only ends with some type of compromise on Internet residuals, but they can't make that deal without validating the strike. So instead they say, "Your leadership sucks! We're going to talk to the 'reasonable' guild."

My crystal ball is no better than yours, but I expect the AMPTP to make a deal with the DGA and then announce that the WGA could have had the same deal three months ago if only our leaders had been professionals or were better negotiators. Or if they had enough chairs. They'll make a big show of offering the same deal to us, and we'll vote to take it. Quietly, we'll drop every other issue they object to. And in the back of our minds we'll wonder if the whole strike could have been avoided.

That's what they want us to think. But you know what, I'll be fine with that as long as we get what we really came for: A fair deal.

#6: It's only called courage if you're willing to sacrifice and stand tall while facing the very real possibility of failure.

Comments

[elizaW]

jacobsmeyer

Thanks for making the point about fi-core and its legitimacy. Anyone who tries to separate politics out of the equation here is operating with blinders. To the extent that this strike is about power, it's political. To think that this strike is happening in some politics-free bubble is naive. As for the all important principles that are constantly being mentioned - we all have principles. Just because John Ridley's principles aren't the same as the WGA leadership's principles doesn't mean he's the bad guy.

[President]

Point 2. There is a "we." In this writer's house, it's a wife saying "We need to feed the kids and care for our parents. And set aside money for college."

Michael, you were 1 of 3 writers on North Country. Maybe you should write up John Ridley's story. South Central Country.
Tagline. "All he wanted was to make a living. Instead he made history."

[squooshy]

Tricky. I was not offended by Mr. Ridley's op-ed piece. I also find merit in the points listed above. It is the preface & some subtext that detracts from the value. In particular the "mugging" line. This tone undermines solidarity of writers. For those writers that are taking a moment to consider going fi-core, it becomes inflammatory rather than reassuring or inspirational. I am dismayed by how often cogent arguments are made, then diminished by the author's need to throw in a passive-aggressive slur. Sorry, Petegrif, but I can understand how someone would construe an inference that being pro-strike does make you a better person, as illustrated by the testaments that it is a test of character in sticking with a strike no matter what, or strike leadership that you don't support. To an extent it is. But some cannot support themselves on character. There is no monetary recompense for it. Yeah, it kind of sucks that you can go fi-core and still reap the benefits of those that didn't give in and lost almost everything. But you still have to be able to afford courage. And being a barrista while the strike lags on for months to save one's character is not always a viable option. I hope nobody will be forced to trade their character for a paycheck, but if things go on too long, some may have to make that difficult choice. So I feel for them because ultimately we all want to face the mirror without averting looking into our own eyes. I cannot offer a solution, but can the disparaging comments be toned down for the sake of maintaining solidarity. I assume this piece was targeting the writers on the cusp. By making them feel like cowards (the subtext, whether intended or not) further disenfranchises them, edging them slightly further toward the fi-core cliff. If you want them to stay on the team, embrace them, not turn them away before decisions have been made for the sake of a petty analogy.

With respect to all,
S

[elizaW]

Fi-core is a Guild option so therefore is sanctioned by the Guild - legally. John Ridley's argument is strong and self-determination is something to be respected. Because someone opts for fi-core does not mean that they would walk by someone being mugged without helping. In fact just because you're pro-strike does not make you a better human being. Talking about sacrifice is tricky. Some people who are not for this strike have already sacrificed more than those who are for it. Everyone wants a fair deal. The question is how to get it. You seem to think the WGA's strategy is the best way to go. Is it? And if it isn't does the WGA have the guts to make changes?