What "Fi-Core" Really Means

I read news today of Writers Guild member John Ridley's decision to go Financial-Core to protest the Writers Guild strike. I was angry and dismayed and my original post on the issue was full of that vitriol. I thought an edit was in order so as not to let the message to get lost in a war of words.

First, let me explain what fi-core means. Just because it has the word "financial" in it doesn't mean it has anything to do with financial hardship. It has to do with reducing your Writers Guild membership down to its "financial core," meaning you have absolutely no responsibilities or restrictions except to pay the portion of dues that goes toward basic guild functions (collective bargaining), but not toward anything else like political or charitable contributions.

Fi-Core means that you are a "dues paying non-member." You get all the benefits of membership as long as you work under a WGA contract but you are not restricted in any way by the WGA. It means you don't have to be on strike if you don't want to be. That's right, you can go back to work, you can cross the picket line, you can cash your checks, and you get all the benefits that may come from the strike without having sacrificed a thing.

Let me say that again... without having sacrificed a thing.

Where's the rub? You can't take part in any of the guild's political processes. You can't vote, you can't sit on the board, you have no say in the future of the guild at all. And it's permanent, a lifetime decision. You can't go back. It's like moving to Switzerland because you don't agree with a U.S. policy... even though policies change and you'll never be allowed to move back.

But for someone who goes fi-core, those things don't matter anymore. What matters is your paycheck (and unfortunately in some cases, a level of smugness). Now, I understand financial hardship. If people are starving or have a family to feed, if they have no other recourse, I can't fault them for doing what they have to do. But if you "own your shit," as Ridley brags in one of his HuffPo posts, then the only thing you're doing by going back to work is hurting those you call your friends and colleagues, weakening the very definition of collective bargaining by demonstrating disunity -- not dissent, disunity. Right now, Nick Counter is having his first erection in thirty years over John Ridley's decision.

When union members go Fi-Core they sacrifice nothing while gaining everything that others have suffered for. Are they entitled to do that? Yes. What they are not entitled to do is claim that they are a part of a community of men and women who chose to stand up for something they believe in, at great risk to themselves.

Comments

[squooshy]

Hey Petegrif,
Read your article. Very, very interesting. As well as the microsoft announcement. This should definitley help in your negotiations. But I still do not back off in my stance that you would be well served to get some more experienced people on your team.

I think the delay in the official DGA talks comes on the heels of the microsoft announcement. And I think the DGA is taking this negotiation much more seriously than the writers give them credit for. They are not out to service only their upms and ad's. That is obvious from the amount of time and money they put into their research. Time and money that the WGA didn't.

But most important, they have not backed the AMPTP into a corner. They are keeping the enviornment friendly but firm. Ken Ziffren is no push-over.

If you won't consider my arguments about your WGA leadership, can you not concede at least on David Young? That change alone could have a vital impact on getting the AMPTP back to the table.

[corymac]

More progress being made? I lifted part of this article from the New York Post.

January 6, 2008 -- The Weinstein Co. is in talks with the Writers Guild of America about a deal that would allow the movie studio to hire striking Hollywood scribes for its film projects, sources told The Post.

The studio is said to be waiting for Tom Cruise's United Artists to announce a similar interim pact with union leaders before it agrees to do the same.

[corymac]

Guys, not to worry, here comes the Cavalry! Hopefully, this will solve the whole bloody mess. This is part of an article I lifted from Reuters.

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - The Directors Guild of America has begun casual contract talks with the studios, and an announcement of formal negotiations appears likely within the coming week, a step that ensures the writers strike will persist for some time.

With its focus turned to the DGA talks, the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers (AMPTP) has little incentive to seek an accommodation with the Writers Guild of America (WGA), which has been on strike since November 5.

The situation still could implode if the AMPTP fails to assure DGA brass that the union will be rewarded for entering early contract talks. The DGA is under contract through June 30, but the guild has a history of negotiating new contracts about six months early and has signaled an interest in commencing formal talks soon.

The AMPTP would love for the DGA to do just that, if only to show that at least one Hollywood labor organization is willing to engage with the studio organization.

Discussions between the directors and studios thus far have primarily involved conference calls, with little face time among those who will sit at the bargaining table. It has taken the better part of a week to contact some of the interested parties, with executives still getting back from vacations.

[Ides]

Producers were sliding into mid-season where they can easily fish out replacements. Now they have to live on their own merits, and that means producers will really start to feel the strain in coming weeks. Now's not the time to fold.

[corymac]

Is this true? This was in the Hollywood Reporter.

Some WGA Writers Striking Out for the 'Fi-Core'
By John Scott Lewinski January 05, 2008 | 4:11:25 AMCategories: Current Affairs, Film, Movies, Television, WGA Strike
We're approaching the second week in January, and the striking writers and their rival studios/networks are just about ready to sit down and get back to work not talking and not negotiating. Sure, they haven't been talking or negotiating since more than a week before Christmas, but that was a well-needed vacation from their previous weeks of complete alienation from each other. Now, the deafening silence will be official again.

As the strike drags through its ninth week, there is talk that more writers will opt to break from their Writers Guild of America membership and opt for "Financial Core" status. "Fi-Core" (as it's called -- since saying the full two-word title would simply take hours) essentially resigns a writer from membership in the guild, making him or her a fee-paying, but not does-paying professional. Such status allows a writer to work under guild terms or outside those limits if he or she chooses. The fi-core pro does not have to attend to any guild responsibilities such as voting, but they also lose any guild benefits.

In the end, it's essentially a way for a writer to show displeasure with guild leadership over the handling of the strike. How many writers hqve the angry inclination (or the guts) to go fi-core is yet to be seen.

[thetvdecider]

here's a crazy idea...why doesn't everybody go back to work?

does any writer out there think they have more leverage now than when the strike started? look what's already on or coming up on the network skeds...biggest loser, american gladiators, supernanny, idol, wife swap, moment of truth, apprentice, big brother, survivor, top model, 1 vs. 100, etc. sure they're "crappy reality shows," but the ones that premiered this week did pretty damn well...good demos...winning their time periods...and probably 1/3 the cost of scripted series.
i'm not a writer (i'm a network weasel), but if i were, "the biggest loser" would scare the shit out of me. even if the strike ends soon, some previously scripted hours are going to be replaced by cheaper reality shows. the longer it goes, the fewer opportunities there will be for writers when it's over.
the wga is trying to play "whose dick is bigger?" with the wrong guys, and losing.
go back to work. at this point, you're not going to get any better deal on strike than you'd get if you were back on the job. at least you'd be getting paid. (and the below-the-line people won't hate you anymore.) tell your leadership to get back to the table. if you're back on the job, i'm sure you'd find the amptp on the other side of the table, ready to negotiate and ready to end this thing.

[WilliePilgrim]

I didn't know that if you move to Switzerland you couldn't come back.
I do understand that unions like any complex organization takes on a life of its own and draconian measures which are designed to extend the power and reach of the organization's influence is natural.
Let's hope conflict like this brings about some resolution, but in the mean time, try reading a book.

[HarleyPeyton]

One more thing. I'll be happy to respect Mr. Ridley, and applaud the courage of his convictions, if and when he gives up his WGA pension and health. As it stands, he gives up nothing and continues to enjoy guild benefits -- benefits that were hard-won. And yes, won by our willingness to strike.

But that would be actual courage, and therefore a bit much to ask.

[HarleyPeyton]

Couple points. Blaming the WGA for the 'impasse' is a little like burning down someone's house and blaming them for the fire. In other words, this impasse is due to one thing and one thing only. The AMPTP's scorched earth approach to negotiations.

Second, the idea that this proves Ridley is willing to "put his money where his mouth is" is both ironic and laughable. In truth, he's willing to be spoon-fed whatever terms the AMPTP is willing to give him (mouth) in order to put cash in his wallet (money). There is, I'd think, a difference.

Lastly, any animus directed toward Mr. Ridley is based on the simple fact that writers are putting their careers and livelihoods on the line for something they believe in, and believe in collectively. This does not suggest blind fealty to the WGA leadership. But rather action in the service of principal. Watching one of our own shame himself in the service of greed and ego? Tends to make one a little tetchy. Listening to others mistake those motives for courage? Ditto.

[squooshy]

Um, I'm having trouble figuring out where the vitriol has been lost or even mitigated. I think the only change is in the title "John Ridley Trades In His Balls."

So I post my previous post from that entry:
squooshy (See profile | I'm a fan of squooshy)
No disrespect to you Mr. Seitzman because I think you have some valid points. But Mr. Ridley didn't trade in his balls. He stood by his convictions that the strike was shamefully mishandled and saw nothing left to gain by following inept leadership. Those were his opinions, and he stood by them.

And since you all hate him so much, why do you even care?

I find one of the strengths of the Huffington Post to be that they have bloggers from both sides of the spectrum. If it didn't it would just be another liberal site and wouldn't stand out. I admit that I am a Republican (an embarrassed by Bush Republican) but I love this site. And by giving a forum that includes bloggers from the right, I am exposed to important information from the left that tempers my opinions and keeps me open-minded.

I blindly followed Bush into a 2nd term, too stupid to question failing leadership, and I have to live with the shame of that. Maybe Mr. Ridley doesn't want to feel the shame of supporting the failing leadership of the guild after being so outspoken about his concerns and then not taking any action on it. He put his money where his mouth is. I think that he can live with that just fine.

[Maxbyte]

I assume that the Guild controls the rules of the game. If enough members like you feel as you do, it should be easy enough to change the rules.

If you are among a minority who feel that way, you may not be able to do much about the rules.

Your edit helps. It was obvious that you were mad as hell about the issue yesterday, and that made it harder to follow for those of us who do not have much knowledge of the strike's bread and butter issues.

Those of us who watch a little TV and other stuff are even farther removed from a solution than folks like you. I can get more out of my time by keeping the TV off; and that's what I'm doing.

Good luck. Thanks for the clarification.

[corymac]

I can see where Mr. Seitzman is coming from, but what he fails to mention is the performance of the WGA negotiators (or lack there of). Mr. Ridley's decision did not just happen in a vacuum. Some say that the WGA's negotiations with the AMPTP are at an impasse. They are not at an impasse, they are non-exestent. An impasse suggests that both parties have reached at stalemate in negotiations, but still want to countinue the bargaining process in hopes of finding a resolution. That is not the case with the WGA/AMPTP negotiations. The AMPTP wants nothing to do with the WGA, period. The WGA negotiators call say their negotiations with the AMPTP are at an "impasse" for one reason: Their egos are too big to admit they have completely failed at negotiating a deal with the AMPTP. Given all this, Mr. Ridley's decision is completely justified