Why is the WGA pursuing individual deals?
By
Well, I’m hoping we get some clarification soon as to what’s going on with The Daily Show and The Colbert Report; at the moment, it sounds like they’re set to return in January, but no one has the final word yet whether that will be with or without the writers, etc. Obviously, I’d very much like the WGA to approve of whatever they do . . .
Regarding that, many people, both in the comments here and elsewhere on “the internets” have expressed confusion as to what the WGA hopes to achieve by negotiating deals with individual production companies. I can’t pretend I understand all the issues, but, at its most basic level, the strategy here aims at weakening the AMPTP by fracturing its united front and allowing those studios more willing to negotiate with the writers to do so (rather than forcing all the studios to toe the line of the Alliance’s more hardline members). I’m sure there are more factors to consider, but here is one excellent article from a couple weeks ago, noted with approval on UnitedHollywood.com (and by Erin in one of our previous comments), that might help explain the WGA’s approach. I’m only quoting part of the article here (okay, it’s a big part), but I strongly encourage people to read the whole thing.
Writers Guild Strike Primer: Part 8, The Big Question
Robert J. Elisberg| BIO | I’M A FAN OF THIS BLOGGER
Posted December 6, 2007 | 11:00 AM (EST). . .
Why is it the AMPTP who is negotiating with the Writers Guild of America???
In fact, why is the AMPTP negotiating with anyone? The Screen Actors Guild, the Directors Guild, any of the 80 industry-wide collective bargaining agreements it handles.
The issue is not that these AMPTP companies are part of multinational corporations…it’s that they are competitors with one another.
Let’s repeat that: the AMPTP is comprised of competitors. And they are negotiating together against labor?? In heaven’s name — why?
Before anyone tries to answer the question, hold off a moment as this is put into a larger perspective.
Imagine the auto industry for a moment.
The AMPTP is like if General Motors, Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, Toyota, Honda and Nissan all got together, decided the terms they would offer employees, and then negotiated as a single body against one isolated division of U.S. auto workers at a time. Divide and conquer. Take it or leave it.
It’s not that it would be massively illegal. It’s that it would be unconscionable. No one in the aghast free world would stand for it. Even Luddites who wished it wasn’t illegal understand why it’s unacceptable.
Or imagine if all the tobacco companies got together. What if they hid research about nicotine, and then…oh, wait, they did. And they all got hauled before Congress.
Competitors are not allowed to negotiate together, to even confer together. It’s called collusion. When baseball owners merely created an “information bank” for offers being made to free agent players, they were fined $280 million. Two competitors cannot talk with one another if there’s just a hint of agreement. Imagine ALL competitors in an industry getting together to set ALL wages and ALL labor conditions.
It doesn’t happen. Anywhere. Not “anywhere in the U.S.” Anywhere in the free world.
Except Hollywood.
Paramount, Fox, Warner Bros., NBC, Disney, CBS, Universal, Sony, MGM…and 341 of their signatory pals all unite to set the pay scale and working conditions for writers. And then for actors. And then directors. And then for all employees in the entertainment industry.
Say what?
Why is it the AMPTP who is negotiating with the Writers Guild of America???
. . .
One semi-caveat here, just to be fair. Because Fair R Us. I’ve subsequently been told that there might be some law that allows for certain collective bargaining by companies. But regardless if that’s the case, the larger perspective and question that’s posed remains — even if there is some law, it’s obviously not something that’s used much, if at all, in other industries. Why Hollywood stands for competitor companies uniting to negotiate is something that should be addressed — not only by the creative community, but the companies themselves, since it’s becoming apparent daily that they have such divergent interests among one another.
And to be clear, it’s not just that competing companies unite to negotiate, but that they do so against each individual segment of labor one by one. If the companies really do want to unite to negotiate, make it a fair fight and negotiate against all the unions of their industry together, as well. Then, you might see quite a different result. (It would be a mess, but hey…)
The bottom line is that there certainly appears to be some major unfair balance here, whether there’s a law or not, that should be addressed. Laws are supposed to correct wrongs, not bring them about. If a law does exist, then it appears its being abused as not intended, and should be redressed. In the end, law or not, the question remains — why is it the AMPTP who each union negotiates with, not individual companies?
The ever-informative Nikki Finke is on top of this angle; check out the new ad the AMPTP is running on its website and in the trades. Now consider that ad in light of what you just read about the AMPTP. Nikki’s entry on Deadline Hollywood Daily addressing that ad puts it quite succinctly:
Now, as evidenced by the ad, the moguls have never been more united at a time the organizers are hoping to divide and conquer,” an AMPTP source tells me. Just one problem: legal sources tell me the ad also exposes potential issues relating to collusion, price-fixing, and anti-trust among the Big Media companies who are supposed to be business competitors. It also once and all establishes that the AMPTP, rather than a supposed umbrella group for 350 production entities as it claims, is really just what I’ve been saying all along: a handful of moguls who control Hollywood because of infotainment consolidation brought on by the lifting of financial syndications rules — Peter Chernin of News Corp/Fox, Jeff Zucker of NBC Universal, Les Moonves of CBS Inc, Brad Grey of Paramount Pictures, Barry Meyer of Warner Bros, Harry Sloan of MGM, Michael Lynton of Sony Pictures Entertainment, Bob Iger of Walt Disney Co.
I don’t know if the WGA’s new strategy of demanding individual negotiations will work, but, given what they’re facing, I certainly understand why they’re giving it a try.
Related posts
8 Comments
December 17th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Wow — what a fantastic article by Elisberg…thank you for posting it. I think it really does a lot of good in explaining some of the monopoly and unfair bargaining practices that are at work here with the AMPTP. I think this particular line really makes a very fair statement about what the WGA is trying to do:
In any other world, in any other industry, the writers — and then actors, directors and others — would each negotiate separately with their employer, one at a time: You get a fair contract with one studio, and everyone else either agrees to the same basic deal or falls behind their competitors. It’s the way business works. It’s the way the law works.
It really makes a great deal of sense. Thank you, Ms. I, for continuing to update us, despite our constant speculation, debate, and general irritabiilty over the last few weeks. Everyone’s dedication over at NFZ is greatly appreciated.
Reply
December 17th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Employers negociating together is not unheard of. In the Netherlands, it is very normal for all employers (of a ceratin branch) to collaborate together with all unions (of a certain branch). The idea is that it gives both parties more power as the represent more people. Also, it forces the parties involved not to play games and deal with all the issues on the table. The final result is that the deals are supposedly ‘fair and balanced’ for both parties, because there is enormous pressure on indivudual employers and unions not to cave in first.
This strategy is encouraged by the government that will declare the first deal (between any employer and any union) to be the one that everybody has to follow.
Surprisingly, as socialistic as the Netherlands are, there are very few strikes. Why? Because all issues are dealt with in one place.
Reply
December 17th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
@Nepkarel,
That’s just the problem in this particular situation — the AMPTP is playing games, and nothing about their negotiating so far have been fair and balanced. They’re not looking out for anyone’s best interest except their own. It’s unfortunate that labor negotiations in America don’t work as they should. Otherwise, I suspect there may not have been a strike in the first place.
Reply
December 17th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
It is a good article. I thought he made a lot of really nice points. For the record, I tried to point it out here a while ago… Hah.
Reply
December 17th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
@ Lisa:
If the problem is that the AMPTP is playing games, then the WGA making contracts with individual companies is not solving the problem. In fact, it might be exactly what the AMPTP wants: to break the spike of the mighty union into many easily breakable local union backs. Having one negotiation also means you have the best negotiators on both sides of the table. Especially employees are at a large disadvantage when they deal with any company that’s larger than mid-size.
From that point of view the LAST thing the WGA wants to do is negociate little seperate deals.
BTW: one huge difference between Dutch and US strikes is that Dutch unions have lavishly filled savings accounts with dues from their members, that they will ‘pay’ their members from. I.e. the members save together for their ’salary’ during a strike. This makes that the employers can’t bank on union members running out of money like in de US.
Quite frankly, as much as I miss my Daily Show and Colbert Report, I think the WGA should just drag their feet, and take some heat until negotiations open with the producers and actors. They can spend time not on the table syncing up with the those unions. AMPTP thinks its hard negotiating with the WGA? Try 3 unions at the same time. They all want the same thing.
If the WGA gets smaller deals with individual companies, the AMPTP will have reached their goal, and the actors and producers will loose their power too.
Politicians haven’t said a whole lot about the strike, but by the time their presidential tv debates and national conventions are being messed up by lack of media coverage, they will wake up.
A minor problem is that the CA gov, and NY mayor have too strong ties in the media world to be effective impartial negotiators.
Reply
December 17th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Thank you, Ms.I, for posting this! I find the most helpful information to be contained unquoted above, but in the full article:
‘On November 14, WGA president Patric Verrone and SAG president Alan Rosenberg went to Washington, D.C. and met with congressional leaders and the FCC to inform them about the difficulties of negotiating with “seven multi-national conglomerates, all supposedly competitors but they all come together to negotiate.”
Two days later, the AMPTP announced it was finally willing to go back to the negotiating table.
This was not a coincidence. There were many reasons the AMPTP went back to the table — but this was not a coincidence.
Two days. There were terrified.
It’s not just the terror of Congress looking into monopoly collusion, but Congressional hearing and lawsuits over the media monopoly stranglehold. Americans have a long-held abhorrence for illegal monopolies.’
I was completely unaware that the WGA approached congressional leaders before the strike. I was also unaware that it had this immediate effect.
Let’s try to see if we can put the same scare into the AMPTP twice. Guess who’s on the Labor Committees (actually Eduacation and Labor) in Congress and the Senate? Here’s a few names you might recognize:
Congress: Dennis Kucinich
(Also my fantastic NJ rep Rush Holt).
Senate: Ted Kennedy (D-MA); C.Dodd (D-CT); T.Harkin (D-IA); B.Mikulski (D-MD); HILARY CLINTON (D-NY); BARACK OBAMA (D-IL).
Write to ‘em.
Reply
December 17th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Thanks, Erin. You did, indeed, point that article out before; I guess I lost track of it in all the strike-related items that came in over the past month. Nice find, though.
Reply
December 17th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Great article, thanks. If it sounds like industry collusion, walks like industry collusion, negotiates like industry collusion, then quack!
Time to write Hillary.
Reply