Bill Maher is bringing back Real Time with no writers.
SAG-AFTRA vote to go on strike
- Thread starter Morpheus 02
- Start date
Stephen King responded to this.
I said leaders not business owners, in your example the California Restaurant Association would be doing the talking.
How can they pressure a company the size of a Disney? What leverage do they have?
The corps are too big these days.
Missed the point. If WGA/SAG can't get the deal done through collective bargaining, then what chance does others have when comes their turn?
And my first thought would be that unemployment insurance would be a factor in those who have lost work through no fault of their own but I admit I could be way off base here.
More than you may imagine. Yes, they corporations make billions of profit per year but they also have huge overhead costs ( in the case of Disney their parks, offices, general employed people etc). If their entertainment branch can't pump out product continuously around the entire year it will eat into their profits and possibly even beyond that and investors hate that above all.
As powerful as corporations seem to be they have still masters and that is everybody who profits from their success and if these people start thinking that the strike is not worth it and would only take up 1% of the profits to meet the strikers demands things may change rapidly. The question though is which side can hold out longer - the strikers or the corporations before they have to move and give up.
I'm still betting on the strikers as their very livelihoods are at stake, they are with their backs against the wall and have no other choice but to fight now so they can remain in the business and do what they love. It's the corporations that have wiggle room and quite a bit of it, they're just not willing to give in just a little bit (yet).
The media companies will do deals between themselves, push customers to ad supported plans to increase revenues, and play accounting games. They’re in no rush to end the strike. They even have scabs starting up shows again. And they have their back catalogue. One of the most popular shows on Netflix is an old show.
The problem is that this is an industry that more people want to enter than there is jobs. I don’t see this ending well for the writers.
Media companies doing deals between themselves? Little to no chance, they're competitors in a highly competitive market. The deal between Sony and Marvel for the Spiderman rights was as rare as an actual Yeti, don't count on anyone helping someone else in this when it comes to the corporations, it's against their DNA. Big money is still in movies and that part is nearly shut down, even more so than during Covid. Right now they are living off completed projects, move some releases back into 2024 and are completing technical work on others ( VFX and all the post processing that doesn't involve actors and writers). Once that has been used by early 2024 there will be a significant gap and they all see it coming, which may sooner or later lead to pressure from theater chains and all the other partners of the studios that rely on product to keep their businesses going because you can't fill theaters with old movies or special screenings for a long time if any.
So it's still a game of chicken between two parties and the corporations will feel pressure because they are looking at more or less empty hands for next year ( and fall TV season has already been shot dead this year).
I’m already seeing media across platforms.
What if they employ writers from Canada or Europe? They can switch to foreign content that’s in English. Two shows come to mind. Devils and Name of the Rose.
Plus they have their old catalogs and sports.
Last edited:
I doubt the whole of Hollywood can work just with writers from Canada and Europe, who probably will think twice about joining up when they see what kind of conditions led to the strike and especially if they already have stable work. There is no more to be done with Sports than it already is done, ESPN and all the other sports channels got that covered and will surely not share parts of the pie and old catalog will only get you so far before people get bored.
The clock is running for both sides, i don't see anyone, especially the studios, being able to circumvent the core issues so they get to continue business. It remains to be seen who wants it more and who's able hold out longer, so far the actors and writers seem to be struggling more as they don't obviously have as deep pockets als multi-billion dollar corporations ( and some of them have already left the business for good and found work elsewhere, bills have to be paid) but as i said that can change too in the coming weeks and months.
Dune and Oppenheimer VFX company trying to reduce salaries or get employees to join in a loan program, apparently similar to Covid set up. 10,000 people affected. Union is having an emergency meeting. I don't know anything about the company, and don't have time to look up details, so have no personal opinion at the moment.
https://deadline.com/2023/09/dune-firm-dneg-pay-cuts-loan-scheme-1235546633/amp/
https://deadline.com/2023/09/dune-firm-dneg-pay-cuts-loan-scheme-1235546633/amp/
A pay cut for 7 months? It's better than losing your job entirely, but two things should be considered.
First, will that company really bring the pay back up in 7 months like they say, or find some other reason to not do it?
Second, let's suppose they do bring the pay back to normal in 7 months. When it's time for evaluations for raises, will they pull a fast one and say, "but you just got a bump in pay", and not give one? Despite it simply being brought back to what they made to begin with. Or pull the other trick and say, "Due to circumstances beyond our control, we cannot give raises more than 1-2%, despite our normal raises being 4-5%, based on your performance evaluations." Or any other tactic. (I put those numbers in as an example, not because that is the percentage of raises they might be getting normally.)
And that loan scheme? What if the person can't pay it back within that time? Is the company going to garnish their wages, hurt their overall credit score by calling them as being in default, fire them, or add a huge interest charge after the due date in an attempt to recover some of the company's lost profits?
The loan scheme sounds exactly like what it sounds like... a scheme.
First, will that company really bring the pay back up in 7 months like they say, or find some other reason to not do it?
Second, let's suppose they do bring the pay back to normal in 7 months. When it's time for evaluations for raises, will they pull a fast one and say, "but you just got a bump in pay", and not give one? Despite it simply being brought back to what they made to begin with. Or pull the other trick and say, "Due to circumstances beyond our control, we cannot give raises more than 1-2%, despite our normal raises being 4-5%, based on your performance evaluations." Or any other tactic. (I put those numbers in as an example, not because that is the percentage of raises they might be getting normally.)
And that loan scheme? What if the person can't pay it back within that time? Is the company going to garnish their wages, hurt their overall credit score by calling them as being in default, fire them, or add a huge interest charge after the due date in an attempt to recover some of the company's lost profits?
The loan scheme sounds exactly like what it sounds like... a scheme.
Last edited:
In my experience, the minute a company starts asking people to take pay cuts "to save jobs", it's time to get out.
It's extremely unlikely that the jobs will be saved beyond that 7 months. In the unlikely event that the company survives, the remaining staff will find they are stuck with the lower wages. The most common scenario in these cases is that the company goes bust, is sold on cheaply and staff are left as unsecured creditors whistling for wages owed. Having a loan would make that case worse as the loans will be called in by the administrators handling the company bankruptcy so people lose their jobs AND have to find money to repay a loan.
It's extremely unlikely that the jobs will be saved beyond that 7 months. In the unlikely event that the company survives, the remaining staff will find they are stuck with the lower wages. The most common scenario in these cases is that the company goes bust, is sold on cheaply and staff are left as unsecured creditors whistling for wages owed. Having a loan would make that case worse as the loans will be called in by the administrators handling the company bankruptcy so people lose their jobs AND have to find money to repay a loan.
No company deserves to stay in business if it cannot pay its employees properly. At minimum, the company should be offering equity to make up for the temporary decrease in pay.
As for Barrymore and Maher, has the WGA said anything about ejecting them from the guild for violating strike rules?
As for Barrymore and Maher, has the WGA said anything about ejecting them from the guild for violating strike rules?
They wouldn't be starting their shows again if the weren't technically following the letter of the rules. Remember when all the late night shows were being improvised back in 2007? Same thing.
I believe the strike rules were different back then and that the current strike rules were designed to prevent that stuff. Many of the shows that went unscripted in 2007 are on strike now as a result.
The articles all say that she is only in violation of WGA rules if there is writing. But no one can seem to agree on what counts as writing. The WGA wants that definition to be as wide as possible, but it doesn't seem to be specified in their rules.
Sure they can. They are picketing because her actions help the studios, whether it's technically in the rules or not is inconsequential.
The WGA board members have literally said they're violating the rules.
They want a line for the scabs to cross.
Similar threads
