SAG-AFTRA vote to go on strike

[UssGlenn]

The WGA board members have literally said they're violating the rules.

Citation needed, everything I've seen are statements of hypotheticals.

 

[wayoung]

Citation needed, everything I've seen are statements of hypotheticals.

All your had to do was type WGA Drew on twitter. WGA board member doing a long thread on how she is violating WGA strike rules.

 

[UssGlenn]

All your had to do was type WGA Drew on twitter. WGA board member doing a long thread on how she is violating WGA strike rules.

In case you've forgotten, not everyone can read Twitter these days. Second, based solely on your image, see that "but if" in his comment? That's called a hypothetical. Has she "written" something? I don't know and neither do you, the first episode has taped but doesn't air until the 18th.

 

[wayoung]

In case you've forgotten, not everyone can read Twitter these days. Second, based solely on your image, see that "but if" in his comment? That's called a hypothetical. Has she "written" something? I don't know and neither do you, the first episode has taped but doesn't air until the 18th.

. The reason that's so popular? The official WGA account re-tweeted it and then organized pockets of the show led by her own WGA writers.

I don't know why you're so hell bent on defending Barrymore but it looks less like objective review of the situation and more a celebrity crush. So I'm done now.

 

[UssGlenn]

. The reason that's so popular? The official WGA account re-tweeted it and then organized pockets of the show led by her own WGA writers.

I don't know why you're so hell bent on defending Barrymore but it looks less like objective review of the situation and more a celebrity crush. So I'm done now.

Impugn my character and run away, I see how it is. For the record my celebrity crush is Christina Hendricks. The point is however, that if Barrymore can improv her way through the show, she has every right to try, just like the writers have every right to picket her. And if it sucks thats all the more evidence that writers are vital. She's only done something wrong if she writes something and thus violates the WGA contract. Has she? WE DON'T KNOW. Clear?

 

[wayoung]

Impugn my character and run away, I see how it is. For the record my celebrity crush is Christina Hendricks. The point is however, that if Barrymore can improv her way through the show, she has every right to try, just like the writers have every right to picket her. And if it sucks thats all the more evidence that writers are vital. She's only done something wrong if she writes something and thus violates the WGA contract. Has she? WE DON'T KNOW. Clear?

I walk away when the convo is going nowhere because instead of looking at literal messages from the Union saying she's broken that rules, you refuse to accept the UNION as a valid source. You even refused to look anything up about it and when shown direct screenshots from the wga still refused to acknowledge their legitimacy.

WGA: Barrymore is "absolutely" breaking union rules. We're picketing her show.

UssGlen: "She's only done something wrong if she writes something and thus violates the WGA contract. Has she? WE DON'T KNOW. Clear?"

Hmm, I wonder who to trust....

 

[UssGlenn]

WGA: Barrymore is "absolutely" breaking union rules. We're picketing her show

I'm quite sure they think someone on her show is secretly writing and CBS is lying about it. I await their proof of this allegation.

 

[Snaploud]

I've heard two legalese arguments for why Barrymore has violated the strike rules.

1. The Drew Barrymore Show is covered under WGA contract and is a struck show. It is a WGA strike violation for any WGA member to work for that show regardless of whether or not writing services are performed.

2. It is impossible for the show to continue without some form of writing (research, cue cards, etc.), so the show is in violation of WGA strike rules.

Claim #1 may or may not be true depending upon the guidance given by the WGA.

Claim #2 may or may not be true depending upon your definition of writing and the way the show is produced.

Regardless, I think people are annoyed because the continuation of those shows sans-writers might hurt the WGA at the bargaining table with studios.

 

[BK613]

Like many, I can't see the thread on that shitshow now called X but I would like to see if somewhere in the thread there is an official statement from the WGA about the show and not just David Slack's opinion. Because as far as I can tell, he is just a member bitching about the situation and not an official spokesman of the WGA.

Regardless, I think people are annoyed because the continuation of those shows sans-writers might hurt the WGA at the bargaining table with studios.

Exactly.
And I wonder how many of the allegedly offending members were no-votes on the strike.

 

[Farscape One]

All your had to do was type WGA Drew on twitter. WGA board member doing a long thread on how she is violating WGA strike rules.

The picture you posted says the rules 'apply to non-members'. A question, just for clarification: if someone is not a member of the WGA, then why are they not allowed to write?

And I'm not talking about standing in solidarity with other writers. I'm asking why non-members of a union are beholden to union rules they never signed on for by not joining a union?

As an example: say I go write for any of the shows that are going into production, but I am not a member of any union. Why is that not allowed?

 

[Snaploud]

The picture you posted says the rules 'apply to non-members'. A question, just for clarification: if someone is not a member of the WGA, then why are they not allowed to write?

This is fairly core to the functioning of unions. Non-union members are not allowed on union productions, and non-union members who cross strike lines (aka act as scabs) are barred from union membership. Without those provisions, unions would have little or no leverage when bargaining with employers.

 

[Farscape One]

This is fairly core to the functioning of unions. Non-union members are not allowed on union productions, and non-union members who cross strike lines (aka act as scabs) are barred from union membership. Without those provisions, unions would have little or no leverage when bargaining with employers.

But if a writer is not a union member, and doesn't want to be part of the union, then they are not obligated to follow that rule, correct?

 

[Snaploud]

But if a writer is not a union member, and doesn't want to be part of the union, then they are not obligated to follow that rule, correct?

The union can't put you in jail. Their only leverage comes from the ability to decide who can be members as well as union contracts that bind studios not to hire non-union members to work on union productions.

 

[Farscape One]

The union can't put you in jail. Their only leverage comes from the ability to decide who can be members as well as union contracts that bind studios not to hire non-union members to work on union productions.

So it's about leverage and control. Understood.

 

[Snaploud]

Drew Barrymore Takes Down Apology Video As Alyssa Milano, Bradley Whitford, Debra Messing & More Have Strong Reactions To Actress’ Decision To Return To Work Amid Strikes

By Tom Tapp

September 15, 2023 4:45pm

https://deadline.com/2023/09/drew-barrymore-takes-down-apology-video-actors-react-1235548393/

 

[Sci]

The Drew Barrymore Show, The Sherri Shepherd Show, The Jennifer Hudson Show and The Talk have all resumed production and are using non-union workers in the studio.

They're all scabs and I hope their careers never recover. They're undermining the WGA and prolonging the strike by doing this.

If the workers are not part of a union, I can't fault them for wanting to get a steady paycheck to pay their bills and take care of their families.

I can. They're betraying their fellow workers.

If he is not using writers or doing any writing himself, he isn't violating any rules, correct?

1) There's no way there's no writing happening. I don't buy it.

2) He is undermining the WGA and prolonging the strike. He is betraying his fellow workers by making it more likely that a majority of them will be unable to make a living in the future, and he therefore deserves to have his career ruined for this.

But doing this will also give a steady check to all those other people who work on the show that aren't writers or actors.

He is hurting every last one of those Hollywood workers who are not on strike by making it more likely that the studios will keep holding out and the strike will last longer. If he really wanted to help those non-striking workers, he would stand in solidarity with the WGA and SAG.

I get that symbolically this is frowned upon for not standing in solidarity with the WGA,

It's not about symbolism. It's about power. Workers' power only comes from unity. If he breaks with that unity, then he's like a soldier deserting on the battlefield -- he's endangering everyone else.

That may be true, but there are a LOT of people who work on those shows that have nothing to do with acting or writing.

They have mortgages/rent to pay each month. They have utilies each month. They have to eat. They have families to provide for.

Then they should stand in solidarity with the striking workers, because if the WGA and SAG fall, their unions will be next, and they, too, will see their compensation reduced too low to live on.

The only way out is through, and the only way through is in solidarity.

First off, I have never said that people should be paid peanuts. Everyone should be paid fairly, and that includes the people NOT on strike.

If you really believed that, you would be supporting the strike and not rationalizing scabbing.

If you look at my previous posts on this very thread, my issue with strikes has been and always wil be the people the strikes affect that ARE NOT the intended targets of the strikes... in other words, it hurts a lot more people in the trenches doing other jobs like the ones I listed above and not the executives and studios.

You say you object to strikes because they hurt third parties, yet you don't object just as vigorously to employer exploitation which also harms third parties. It's the equivalent of attacking victims who are acting in self-defense rather than aggressors who threw the first punch.

I've never liked rich people... I've dealt with entitled people and well off people a vast majority of my life. As someone who has been working class his entire life, I'm always against the rich.

Then stop attacking your fellow workers and support the strikes.

I wasn't blaming either side for drawing the strike out.

You should be, because it's the studios and the scabbing traitors who are drawing the strike out.

The point is however, that if Barrymore can improv her way through the show, she has every right to try,

Legally? Sure.

Morally? No. She's a fucking traitor to her fellow workers.

The picture you posted says the rules 'apply to non-members'. A question, just for clarification: if someone is not a member of the WGA, then why are they not allowed to write?

Legally? You're allowed to write.

But if you do, why should the WGA allow you to join?

Again: Workers' power only comes from unity. Why should workers accept someone who betrays their fellow workers by undermining the unity they need to get fair compensation?

And I'm not talking about standing in solidarity with other writers. I'm asking why non-members of a union are beholden to union rules they never signed on for by not joining a union?

Legally, you're not.

Morally: Because you're hurting your fellow workers when you undermine them.

But if a writer is not a union member, and doesn't want to be part of the union, then they are not obligated to follow that rule, correct?

Legally? No.

But don't expect to ever be allowed to join the WGA, and don't expect WGA members to hire you, because you literally fucked over every other writer in the industry by doing that.

So it's about leverage and control. Understood.

Yes. It's about workers having collective leverage so that the people with money can't control them. And by undermining that unity, scabs are giving control to the wealthy and are undermining the leverage their fellow workers need to obtain fair compensation. They are, in other words, making it easier for the rich to exploit their fellow workers. They're scabs and traitors.

 

[Farscape One]

They're all scabs and I hope their careers never recover. They're undermining the WGA and prolonging the strike by doing this.



I can. They're betraying their fellow workers.



1) There's no way there's no writing happening. I don't buy it.

2) He is undermining the WGA and prolonging the strike. He is betraying his fellow workers by making it more likely that a majority of them will be unable to make a living in the future, and he therefore deserves to have his career ruined for this.



He is hurting every last one of those Hollywood workers who are not on strike by making it more likely that the studios will keep holding out and the strike will last longer. If he really wanted to help those non-striking workers, he would stand in solidarity with the WGA and SAG.



It's not about symbolism. It's about power. Workers' power only comes from unity. If he breaks with that unity, then he's like a soldier deserting on the battlefield -- he's endangering everyone else.



Then they should stand in solidarity with the striking workers, because if the WGA and SAG fall, their unions will be next, and they, too, will see their compensation reduced too low to live on.

The only way out is through, and the only way through is in solidarity.



If you really believed that, you would be supporting the strike and not rationalizing scabbing.



You say you object to strikes because they hurt third parties, yet you don't object just as vigorously to employer exploitation which also harms third parties. It's the equivalent of attacking victims who are acting in self-defense rather than aggressors who threw the first punch.



Then stop attacking your fellow workers and support the strikes.



You should be, because it's the studios and the scabbing traitors who are drawing the strike out.



Legally? Sure.

Morally? No. She's a fucking traitor to her fellow workers.



Legally? You're allowed to write.

But if you do, why should the WGA allow you to join?

Again: Workers' power only comes from unity. Why should workers accept someone who betrays their fellow workers by undermining the unity they need to get fair compensation?



Legally, you're not.

Morally: Because you're hurting your fellow workers when you undermine them.



Legally? No.

But don't expect to ever be allowed to join the WGA, and don't expect WGA members to hire you, because you literally fucked over every other writer in the industry by doing that.



Yes. It's about workers having collective leverage so that the people with money can't control them. And by undermining that unity, scabs are giving control to the wealthy and are undermining the leverage their fellow workers need to obtain fair compensation. They are, in other words, making it easier for the rich to exploit their fellow workers. They're scabs and traitors.

First off, I've already said in the past that studios and executives are ridiculous in their treatment of everyone under them. They've got plenty of money to go around for all.

Second, if you read what I have said, exactly what are the other workers supposed to do when they have NO INCOME TO PAY THEIR BILLS AND SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES?

Which is precisely why I don't blame any worker for going back to work because as noble as it is to keep striking, nobility doesn't pay mortgages/rent, utilities, food, etc.

We're on the FIFTH month of strikes. At what point are all those other workers supposed to be supporting the strike when the banks are calling them for the mortgage, or the utilities are about to get shut off, or they don't have enough money to get food for their kids' dinner?

Real question, because banks and utilities and stomachs don't give a damn about the job being put on hold. Because I went through 6 months of no work because of other people, and I don't wish that on anyone, no matter the reason.

What do YOU propose the other workers do if they've reached a point now of not being able to maintain their homes or take care of their families after MONTHS of standing by and supporting the WGA and SAG? Seriously, if one of the workers comes up to you and says they can no longer feed their kids or keep the lights on or pay the mortgage, what do you tell them?

 

[Sci]

First off, I've already said in the past that studios and executives are ridiculous in their treatment of everyone under them. They've got plenty of money to go around for all.

Yet you have dedicated far more energy to trying to argue against the strike. It's as though you saw someone throw a punch, gave a cursory yell at the aggressor, but then spent most of your energy criticizing the guy defending himself.

Edited to add: If you really think the writers and actors ought to be compensated fairly, then you should support the strike. Period. End edit.

Second, if you read what I have said, exactly what are the other workers supposed to do when they have NO INCOME TO PAY THEIR BILLS AND SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES?

They're supposed to support their fellow workers by not undermining the strike.

We're on the FIFTH month of strikes. At what point are all those other workers supposed to be supporting the strike when the banks are calling them for the mortgage, or the utilities are about to get shut off, or they don't have enough money to get food for their kids' dinner?

They should absolutely do what they need to do to survive, as long as they're not undermining the strike.

Edited to add:

Also -- don't think I didn't notice your rhetorical goal change. First people are condemning millionaires like Bill Maher and Drew Barrymore for scabbing; you reply by citing their alleged need to support non-WGA/SAG crew (most of them are covered under IATSE, if I understand correctly).

When we pointed out that Maher, Barrymore, et al, are actually hurting their IATSE crew by scabbing, you then go and shift the goal posts and start asking what the IATSE crew are supposed to do.

But that's not the question! Most of those IATSE crew members are incapable of undermining the WGA/SAG strikes because the people with the power to bring those shows back are themselves striking.

The people who have the actual power to undermine the strike in this scenario are the scabbers, not the IATSE crew.

The real question is not, "Should IATSE crew cross the picket line to work on a struck show?"

The question is: "Should the people running struck shows resume production during the strikes?" And the answer is, no, absolutely not, they're goddamn scabs and traitors for making that choice.

You want to make sure IATSE crew members are taken care of? Tell Bill Maher and Drew Barrymore to shut down production and pay their crew out of their own pocketbooks until the strikes are over.

 

[UssGlenn]

The sly move would be to do a show but make it as boring, awkward and unwatchable as possible, allowing you to pay your employees and demonstrate how important the writers are. The WGA's real fear is that the show might be watchable, undermining them far more than any break in solidarity.

And by the way I hope the shows are bad, and that they shouldn't have tried to start up again. I just don't think its been proven they've actually violated any WGA contracts yet.

 

[Farscape One]

Yet you have dedicated far more energy to trying to argue against the strike. It's as though you saw someone throw a punch, gave a cursory yell at the aggressor, but then spent most of your energy criticizing the guy defending himself.

Edited to add: If you really think the writers and actors ought to be compensated fairly, then you should support the strike. Period. End edit.



They're supposed to support their fellow workers by not undermining the strike.



They should absolutely do what they need to do to survive, as long as they're not undermining the strike.

Edited to add:

Also -- don't think I didn't notice your rhetorical goal change. First people are condemning millionaires like Bill Maher and Drew Barrymore for scabbing; you reply by citing their alleged need to support non-WGA/SAG crew (most of them are covered under IATSE, if I understand correctly).

When we pointed out that Maher, Barrymore, et al, are actually hurting their IATSE crew by scabbing, you then go and shift the goal posts and start asking what the IATSE crew are supposed to do.

But that's not the question! Most of those IATSE crew members are incapable of undermining the WGA/SAG strikes because the people with the power to bring those shows back are themselves striking.

The people who have the actual power to undermine the strike in this scenario are the scabbers, not the IATSE crew.

The real question is not, "Should IATSE crew cross the picket line to work on a struck show?"

The question is: "Should the people running struck shows resume production during the strikes?" And the answer is, no, absolutely not, they're goddamn scabs and traitors for making that choice.

You want to make sure IATSE crew members are taken care of? Tell Bill Maher and Drew Barrymore to shut down production and pay their crew out of their own pocketbooks until the strikes are over.

First of all, this isn't a black or white, yes or no, binary issue. You can support something and still have some issues with the subject. That kind of extreme thinking of 'full, unquestioning support or you are against us' kind of thinking is exactly why people don't get along these days.

Second, my questions about the non-members of WGA were in an attempt to get clarification on why people who are not part of a particular union and don't want to be a member are supposed to be beholden to it.

Third, one of the links had Maher stating even with his assistance to the crews, they are still struggling. Which is why I don't blame any of those crews going back to work so they take care of their families.

When you have overdue bills and have to feed your kids, how are they being hurt further by going back to work so they don't lose their homes or get into crippling debt because they need to get a loan to survive during the strike?

I'll admit the wording of my questions might have seemed off, so my apologies for that if it appears like goal moving, but my issue was and has always been about all the other workers who aren't writers or actors. Just like I said in previous posts pages ago. Which is a FAR greater number of people on a show than WGA and SAG members.

So I ask you again...

What do YOU propose the other workers do if they've reached a point now of not being able to maintain their homes or take care of their families after MONTHS of standing by and supporting the WGA and SAG? Seriously, if one of the workers comes up to you and says they can no longer feed their kids or keep the lights on or pay the mortgage, what do you tell them?