Jump to content

Guest cancellation - Hayden Panettiere

showmasters

By showmasters,
in Eclipse - Heroes Convention

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Yodas'stuntman Stunt Co-ordinator

Yodas'stuntman

Posted
Posted

Or, how about this question?

 

How dare they force many times more people out of work, ruin other lives, all for their own monetary gain?

Well, technically, in the truest sense it wasn't even a strike. Their payrates are fixed by an agreement btween their trade association and the studios. So all their individual contracts will not specify a monetary amount but say that you will be paid in accordance with payscale agreed between the Writers Guild Of America and the studios.

That agreement expired on 31st October last year. So, technically, after that date, there was no pay set for these people. Arguably their individual contracts were therefore invalid, and equally arguably, if they had continued to work on, they would not have been entitled to any pay at all. They would have a case for arguing continuing custom and practice, but (a) that's a weak position to put yourself in and (:huh: it could be construed as a de facto acceptance of the old contract, which it plainly shouldn't as they wished to negotiate. Legalese aside, from having had to consult employment layers before, working without a full and valid contract of employment can be dodgy, especially if you're in dispute over some of the terms of the now-expired contract. As such, the decision to "strike"was pretty much forced upon them by the industry failing to agree new terms with the WGA for new payscales.

 

So, why did they wish to renegotiate their old central contract payscales? Basically as I understand it, there were two main issues:

1. A poor remuneration rate on DVD sales

2. No remuneration rate from internet showings/downloads

 

The first of these is a nonsense. If your work is worth a certain amount when it's broadcast on TV or sold on VHS tapes, why should it be worth less in a DVD format? It's a complete scam by the studios. (This is not a new trick - for many years after CDs were introduced, the artist's royalty rate from CD was much less than for sales of vinyl. I'll spare you the history lesson, but it was basically big business (the recording labels) gouging a heap of cash off the back of the creative people involved in the process).

 

The no pay for internet viewing situation needed to be addressed on two grounds, principle and practicality. If they were not going to be paid for internet showings of their work, then that sets a precedent. If somebody invents a 3d projection system that comes in via your power supply, then they don't need for writers to be paid for any shows "broadcast" that way either. Or any other new technology. Secondly, on the practicality side of it, you have to consider the changing face of broadcasting. With the huge increase in broadband availability, who can predict what might happen in the next few years? How about special internet only episodes? We're doing 22 episodes this series, but we also want you to write 11 special internet-only episodes. Of course, you won't get any fees for these, but hey, you've got a job so stop complaining. Instantly they're getting another 50% out of you for nothing, or giving you a 33.3% cut in residuals, if you like. Who's to say that they might switch over to "broadcasting" entire series over the internet only Great, the studios decide to do it all over broadband, rake in all the advertising revenue, but only pay you basic rate with no residuals (royalties). That's a huge pay cut for a screenwriter, just to keep some fat cats and shareholders in champagne and cigars. (It's not all that far fetched to think they may switch to broadband if the market saturation of it gets high enough - the alternative, cranking huge quantities of electricity into broadcasting masts or bouncing stuff up to satellites is not cheap. Arguably, broadband transmission may avoid some regulatory restrictions.

 

So basically, the WGA wished to address some anomalous and unfair remuneration practices, and safeguard their members' interests. The inability of the studios to reach agreement before the expiry of the old payscale pretty much forced the writers to strike.

Might I suggest that once you've been in the real world for a while*, and perhaps had the misfortune to be bilked out of a substantial amount of money by an employer (several thousand pounds in one case) for work that you have legitimately done, and expenses that you have incurred in the course of that work, you might have a bit more sympathy with people who feel that they should take action to protect "own monetary gain".

 

* Apologies if that sounds patronising - it's not meant to, merely a reflection that you are relatively young and can only have fitted so much experience into your life.

 

It is patronising. This has nothing to do with my age, and I know all of those points that you brought up. None of that is news to me. I know what their excuses are for hurting people. The fact remains that they DID in fact hurt people, many more people than they helped.

 

I am simply looking at this from the point of view that the writers, through their desire for more money, caused many times more people to lose money, to lose jobs, to lose houses. But, hey, they didn't care. As long as they get their own rise, what does it matter about everyone else?

 

But surely like ive said earlier the actors directors etc etc etc who were out of work for a couple of months need a story and the imagination of the writers to do their respective tv and films anyway!! without the writing there wouldnt be any jobs in the first place!!!!!????? so i think a cut of the dvd and downloads is more than due!! (HIDES UNDER TABLE :unsure: ) :angel:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TommyT Art Director

TommyT

Posted
Posted

I know what their excuses are for hurting people.

If you call not having a valid contract, which some legal opinion would say means that you cannot work, an "excuse", then so be it.

I am simply looking at this from the point of view that the writers, through their desire for more money, caused many times more people to lose money, to lose jobs, to lose houses. But, hey, they didn't care. As long as they get their own rise, what does it matter about everyone else?

"more money", "their own rise"?. When TV programs were sold on VHS, they got a higher rate. When they switched to DVD, they got a lower rate. They were fighting a pay cut, rather than demanding a rise. And there really is no reason to cut theirpay - look at the studios and networks, all big international conglomerates with multi-million dollar profits. Why do they need to gouge more cash from the writers?

 

Imagine you are one of the writers. Your payscales are set by a bunch of hugely rich corporations (between them Time Warner and NewsCorp had profits of over $10 billion last year), who control the pay levels across the entire industry. They want to cut your pay by paying you less for some media than before (DVD vs VHS) and not at all for other media, other media which may well be where a major part of work goes in future. The people controlling the payscales have annual profits of tens or millions of dollars, yet they want to pay you less than you used to get. What do you do? You an't get another job, without completel leaving the industry, because they control the payscales industrywide. I think from what you're saying you just have to roll over and accept a pay cut, but if you're saying there is another way, I'd be glad to hear it.

 

And I apologise if you found it patronising, it wasn't meant to be. I was trying to suggest that if you ever find yourself in a situation where you are suddenly several thousand pounds worse off, courtesy of your employer, just because they can do it, you might feel a little differently. Granted you might not, either. Didn't mean to offend, generally I respect you as a poster and think you talk a lot of sense; just thought you're way off beam here.

 

Why post rude BS? If this is 'kindergarten' (lame) id expect some coseyness.

Yes, but you might expect some hair-pulling and tantrums too. :yoda:

Stop posting mindless crap for no reason.

I assume that's apology not accepted, then? Sorry you feel that way.

 

Di** Tommyotool over there.

And to think that I apologised before you called me this...

Why post rude BS?

Indeed.

I dident mean any offence. I dont like to fight,

In which case, in a spirit of rapprochement, I shall do everything within my power to see "Di** Tommyotool" as non-offensive.

Might I suggest that if you don't like to fight, calling people rude names isn't the best way to avoid it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...