Likely 3rd Strike: TV/Radio News Writers

COMMENTS (14)

• Question from someone who isn’t connected to Hollywood.

  1. Do these unions have strike funds? If so, how much will they give their members if it’s a prolonged strike?

  2. Will the networks try and bust the unions? Wait them out? Or just plan on hopefully out negotiating them?

  Thanks so much, just curious.

  Comment by Greg H — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 4:03pm PST  Reply to this post

• That’ll be the nail on Katie Couric’s coffin.

  Comment by not a writer — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 4:08pm PST  Reply to this post

• No news? I’m sure the networks will be grateful for the opportunity to program something that people might watch.

  Comment by Richard Hertz — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 4:51pm PST  Reply to this post

• Distribution is cheap and plentiful, I fear the suits want creative content to be just as easy. The guild is asking for basic no-frills compensation, especially in light of the VHS matter. Considering it’s writers who create the golden goose, from plot to characters to merchandising opportunities, the studios could give a fair percentage and still run like bandits.

  Are they hoping to bust the union? Seems they can wait it out much easier than a writer, or anyone working on a production. Bring support to the picket lines and help with the internet blackouts. And thanks, Nikki. Your coverage has been fantastic; illuminating and thorough.

  Comment by Turning letters — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 5:21pm PST  Reply to this post

• So….would this be all CBS newswriters? Would 60 Minutes be off the air? What about local CBS newscasts? Which shows in particular would be affected?

  Comment by Kerry — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 5:25pm PST  Reply to this post

• Here is a hypothetical question that has come to mind since the inception of the strike.

  On both a short term and long term basis, what do the networks and studios lose by either hiring non-union writers during the course of the strike or just outright firing the existing writers en toto and hiring brand new writers under a contract that is favorable to the networks and studios (e.g. no residuals period)?

  Comment by Mark Smith — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 5:42pm PST  Reply to this post

• Joel Surnow of “24″ says that the studios are out to bust up the unions and this will be a long strike…

  http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2007/11/the-following-w.html

  A quote:
  “Hollywood’s not being held hostage,” Surnow told the Times. “I think (the studios) are going to break the guild. With millionaires on the picket line, they’re not going to get a lot of empathy.”

  Comment by LongStrikeAhead — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 6:23pm PST  Reply to this post

• On a short-term basis they would lose the people who are behind the shows, though not necessarily the shows themselves (shows could go on with replacement writers, a not unheard of concept normally). On a long term basis they would essentially short-out the very medium through which writers are able to sustain themselves inbetween “lean years” (ie:between major writing jobs), meaning that more people would leave the profession,that trying to find work to produce would be harder since less people would be inclined to do it, and that overall the economics of the whole system would go screwy.

  The demands that the studios are making are not even viable for them. They presume, of course, that with salaries frozen and residuals thrown out, everyone will come clamoring for the glitz and glamor of Hollywood. That’s simply not the case. You may see an initial rush of product created by non-unionized writers, but eventually the sheer economics would burn out and drive away talent.

  Comment by Sean S. — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 6:58pm PST  Reply to this post

• Thank you for the well reasoned response Sean S. For me, not being directly involved in the “business” (my wife is an actress so I have some limited peripheral involvement), the current strike and the issues that underlie it are of exceeding interest from the economics and business point of view (with no personal emotional investment).

  From what I can discern, the downside for the studios and networks is only short term given the potential loss of viewership for any particular given show. Such, of course, assumes that replacement writers are not brought in and that if brought in exhibit little capability for creating storylines that retain viewers. I do not see much probability of the latter occurring should the former be exercised.

  Longterm, I see little that the studios and networks would lose. New shows, new ideas and new talent are always to be found and always willing to take upon themselves the mantle of celebrity (just look at what people do these days with no pay in an attempt to gain some degree of celebrity or perhaps notoriety). It would surprise me not if the studios and networks are viewing the current strike as their opportunity to enact a paradigm shift when it comes to compensation for all “talent” involved (e.g. fixed salary with no residuals and no right to ownership over the final product). Should the studios and networks succeed in replacing the existing crop of writers with new writers and under terms favorable to the former… then I would expect to see the same when it comes to future negotiations with the other guilds.

  Comment by Mark Smith — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 8:08pm PST  Reply to this post

• Considering many news shows are shown online like “60 Minutes” (on Yahoo!) and “CBS Evening News” (on CBSNews.com), this makes sense.

  Comment by Sam — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 8:39pm PST  Reply to this post

• Entertainment industry

  The term Taft-Hartley has a special meaning in the entertainment industry. Specifically, for film and television actors, an actor not in the union who becomes a “principal performer” (says a line) is immediately eligible to join the Screen Actors Guild and is covered under the SAG contract with the production company for 30 days, at which point he or she must either join SAG or cease working on any union productions. Once joining the union, the actor may not work on any non-union production, per the terms of the bylaws. This allows SAG to get around the rules forbidding closed shops by providing a mechanism for new members to join the union.

  So the new writers might be able to work for 30 days. Then they would have to join the Union and honor the strike OR the Studio would have to fire them. (Replace SAG in the above quote with the Union you are concerned about.) But this is the law passed in 1947. I’m sure that things have changed. When I worked for a Union Company (1969-1978 in New Mexico) We could not hire someone to do work that had been codified as “union work.” Supervisors could fill in on certain Safety Related jobs, but nobody could be hired to stay after the strike ended.

  Comment by Dave — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 9:07pm PST  Reply to this post

• ^ The writers would not write for 30 days and then join the union, and support the strike. They would be blacklisted.

  That’s not to say the corporations don’t want to wait this out and bust the union.

  Comment by Turning letters — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 10:59pm PST  Reply to this post

• Honestly, the network news shows could cease broadcasting and no one would notice.

  Most people get their news from talk radio and the internet anyway.

  Comment by Joe Cool — Tuesday November 13, 2007 @ 11:13am PST  Reply to this post

• Joe Cool

  Knx1070′s writers are WGA.

  It’s not just TV.

  It’s funny to me that the people on strike don’t give a shit about the other people in their own guild, who haven’t even had a contract for almost 3 years.

  Egocentric asses.

  Comment by sadtimesareher — Tuesday November 13, 2007 @ 2:46pm PST  Reply to this post