Re: First ATA agency breaks ranks
Man, I'm not in the union and likely never will be, but how about this opinion 'from the outside':
Where the Guild has not had very favorable results in the past, through their various strikes, had much to do with the fact that the 'other side' was able to outlast them. Even idealistic union members have to eat, and without money coming in the well runs dry and, naturally, so can the will to fight.
But in this case, few writers are losing money, since there's no real work stoppage. They're continuing to earn in their new homes (agencies), am I correct, without much of a hiccup.
Yet, it seems that some of the reporting (criticized by many, here) fails to take that into consideration, and instead presents this struggle as 'just another strike-type situation'.
It's not.
Regarding the ATA's tactics of litigation delay, somebody's giving them poor (read 'desperate') advice, and remember too that all or most of the legal fees resulting from these court initiatives can be recouped by the winning side. That's gotta be a scary thing for investors who were once dreaming about IPOs rivaling Google or FaceBook. ha ha ha
The Guild should win this, hands own, but they will have to be patient - and at least this time (most of) their members won't be going hungry. Their negotiators can speed the whole process up a bit, through some gutsy compromises that don't matter too much, but I wouldn't give in on any big points. In fact, the longer the thing goes on, the better for union members: Once new shows get up and running, and we see that nothing's changed except the name of the agent/cy, that alone will add weight to the scale on the union's side. (I'm sure that much reportage will remain on the side of the corporate, maybe as representing some sort of proxy for 'viewing audiences'. Like, not.)
So again, this is just a view from the outside, probably not much different from what a member of the public thinks, even if I am or should be more informed than John Q.
Naturally, I'm for the little guy and gal, a theme reflected in several of my scripts, and I'm against the immoral and greedy corporate meanies.
However, they're not all immoral, and money is not in itself immoral, so I am also totally for great working partnerships between the two sides when both can just concentrate on making great movies and art.
G'luck to all!
Man, I'm not in the union and likely never will be, but how about this opinion 'from the outside':
Where the Guild has not had very favorable results in the past, through their various strikes, had much to do with the fact that the 'other side' was able to outlast them. Even idealistic union members have to eat, and without money coming in the well runs dry and, naturally, so can the will to fight.
But in this case, few writers are losing money, since there's no real work stoppage. They're continuing to earn in their new homes (agencies), am I correct, without much of a hiccup.
Yet, it seems that some of the reporting (criticized by many, here) fails to take that into consideration, and instead presents this struggle as 'just another strike-type situation'.
It's not.
Regarding the ATA's tactics of litigation delay, somebody's giving them poor (read 'desperate') advice, and remember too that all or most of the legal fees resulting from these court initiatives can be recouped by the winning side. That's gotta be a scary thing for investors who were once dreaming about IPOs rivaling Google or FaceBook. ha ha ha
The Guild should win this, hands own, but they will have to be patient - and at least this time (most of) their members won't be going hungry. Their negotiators can speed the whole process up a bit, through some gutsy compromises that don't matter too much, but I wouldn't give in on any big points. In fact, the longer the thing goes on, the better for union members: Once new shows get up and running, and we see that nothing's changed except the name of the agent/cy, that alone will add weight to the scale on the union's side. (I'm sure that much reportage will remain on the side of the corporate, maybe as representing some sort of proxy for 'viewing audiences'. Like, not.)
So again, this is just a view from the outside, probably not much different from what a member of the public thinks, even if I am or should be more informed than John Q.
Naturally, I'm for the little guy and gal, a theme reflected in several of my scripts, and I'm against the immoral and greedy corporate meanies.
However, they're not all immoral, and money is not in itself immoral, so I am also totally for great working partnerships between the two sides when both can just concentrate on making great movies and art.
G'luck to all!
Comment