In For A Strike

Writers of Hollywood, in case anyone missed it, are striking for better pay. Now that may sound absurd, but here is the deal. The crux of the issue, and the main point of contention, is that they receive little to no compensation for DVD sales and new media outlets, such as internet downloads and content for handheld devices such as phones, PDAs and other items.

The works they create are being broadcast beyond the traditional broadcast mediums into an expanding array of new technology and pushed into these new arenas as fast as it can be produced. Unfortunately for the writers, these new mediums were not considered previously, as many did not exist, when discussions of compensation arose in previous contract years. Now they want to be compensated for their work as it is displayed in all mediums.

I see their point as clear as day, and they do have a very good one. If their work is displayed somewhere, they should be given something in compensation for it. No one wants to see someone else get fat off the sweat of their brow. It is humiliating and angering. But at the same time, they seem to be missing the a few key points.

The first point revolves around the idea that the writers feel that everyone should care about this. But why? I am waiting to hear an argument that clearly states why the average person and viewer should care, but thus far the arguments have been quite thin.

I heard one writer/actor from the show Big Shots on the nationally syndicated Tom Leykis radio show attempt at making the case for the writers. He brought up some finances regarding the writers. One of his biggest points was that “baby” writers, those who are young and just getting started, make between $2,500-$3,500 a week for 22 weeks of work and then that work is used to make a profit in a variety of different arenas in which they see nothing.

These writers would be the most impacted by this loss of potential income, as they do not make as much for their work as other more established writers and can find work coming during inconsistent intervals. As I said previously, I can see how that situation would be angering and how someone would desire to change it. But perhaps using these numbers to illustrate your reasoning for a work stoppage is not the best idea.

I am not sure how accurate those numbers really are, but for sake of argument let’s take them at face value. Rounding to the average, let’s say one of these writers makes $3,000 a week and represent the low end of the spectrum for writing compensation. Over 22 weeks, that comes out to $66,000, before taxes.

I am not a math genius or a financial expert, but $66,000 dollars a year, for a half year of work, to sit around, be creative and tell stories sounds like a damn good way to make a living if you ask me. Making that kind of scratch for a half a year of work? And then to have 24 weeks a year to do whatever I wanted? Maybe take a trip, visit family, write a book or a play, and take a second job that may not pay well but could be fun, interesting or challenging and still make a decent living? Where is the bottom line of that contract, I want to put my John Hancock on it today!

By using this math as his example, the actor/writer makes it very difficult for the average person to see the point of the strike or empathize with the position of the writers. In 2005, the median household income was $46,326. Now, you know a majority of the people who hit that average, or are below it, are not obtaining that income by writing or other creative, or even enjoyable, means. No, they are out there busting their humps day in and day out at physically draining and emotionally numbing jobs. And they do it to keep food on the table and a roof over people’s heads, not because it gives them personal satisfaction or its fun. To your average person, seeing people who never have to get dirty during the day to bring home a few bucks arguing over compensation rights when they already make far more in a week than most do in a few months not only seems asinine, but downright insulting. Your average person is not going to care that much about a strike involving already well paid individuals who do not have to struggle just for basic necessities when they have to worry about the potential of figuring out how to avoid $4 a gallon gas.

The second key point missed by the writers comes by their assertion that by striking and bringing a halt to original programming, they will have the edge since people will crave original stories. Without these new shows, people will rise up and put pressure on networks and producers to settle the strike.

Once again they have a point, as most people do enjoy a well told story, be it a comedy, drama or something in between. But what they seem to miss here is that people will find an outlet for that need to be entertained. Books, movies, independent productions, short stories, plays, musicals and more can provide them with that want.

Will people miss their programs? You betcha. I read today the last new episode of The Office will air next week. I love that show, and must compliment not only the actors, but especially the writers. It is well written, funny and intelligent and never fails to deliver in terms of entertainment. But my world will not come to an end. Nor will anyone else’s for that matter. What will I do? I don’t know, read a book, take a walk, play a game, and catch up on the stack of writing I have yet to finish or the pile of movies I have yet to see. The world will continue to turn.

And unlike the last time the writers went on strike, there are far more entertainment outlets for people to occupy themselves with than before. The attention span of our culture is shorter than ever, and people will distract themselves with something else and find new ways to entertain themselves if their favorite shows are gone for any extended period of time.

In an ironic third point missed, the writers seem to overlook that many of the same venues they are fighting to get paid for are going to provide people with entertainment to compensate for the loss of new programming.

The writer mentioned previously also stated that people will not want to watch the filler program put forth. At the very least, he is correct in that assumption when it comes to me. I cannot stand most reality shows, as they have very little to do with reality, and would not be overly upset if the entire genre disappeared. But that did not happen last time the writers walked out for better compensation and is the fourth key point they are missing. The networks found out people will tune in for just about anything, as long as it’s new and somewhat interesting or captivating.

And the networks will not miss a beat. The last time this happened, they were caught flat footed. Not this time. They know the formula that worked last time, and they will play the same cards again and again. Reruns will start us off, and then once a few shows get ramped up, we will see a deluge of game shows and reality programming. Most likely networks will bring in a large influx of sports programming as well. I bet the NHL would love to fill in a few programming holes on a network for a few nights a week. The networks will just throw out whatever they have to in order to ride out the storm, and they will do just fine.

Fifth, they also miss the point in how serious their strike really is. One striker mentioned on a news program interview that they were bringing a stop to productions all over town and that their work stoppage was devastating. Yes, it is, but not to those you wish it to be. They hope that the devastation will be exacted upon the producers, studios and networks and that this will force them to cave. But who is really most affected by this? It’s the support personnel that work on the shows. The grips, electricians, construction people, support personnel, office managers, show managers and all of the other unsung people that contribute to producing entertainment are the ones that will be affected the most. They will not see anything out of this strike in terms of compensation. What they will see are smaller, or missing, paychecks the longer the strike continues.

Unions were originally created to help protect the working man and woman from being taken advantage of and abused by cruel companies. And strikes were their most effective method once negotiations stalled to force those same companies to change working conditions and compensation to raise the standards in which their employees worked and lived. One could argue in this case that the writers are being taken advantage of, but there situation pales in comparison to those who really need a union. The writers are not abused, beaten or risk their lives on a daily basis. They do not work in dangerous conditions, although I have heard some horror stories involving a few, let’s just say demanding, producers. They are well compensated for their efforts. They have health care and pensions and are able to provide for their families. And they cannot lose their jobs on a whim from a petulant superior without consequences. They have all the protections a union should and can provide. In this increasingly cut throat world those kinds of conditions, compensation and protection are becoming far more difficult to find.

If people really wanted to get up in arms about unions and the people they should be protecting in the entertainment industry, they should ask where are the unions for workers like runners, assistants and other personnel of their like? These people work tireless, thankless jobs for beyond minimal compensation doing menial and degrading jobs with only the sliver of hope that perhaps something good could come out of the experience. They are hired and fired, often, on a whim and no one cares what happens to them after that. Some in these positions do manage to carve out a great life, and work for some extraordinary people who treat them well. But those are usually outnumbered by the ones walking through a hell on Earth.

Marc Cherry, the creator and producer of Desperate Housewives, is among the stars and producers on the picket lines supporting the striking writers. His stance and support for the strike is mainly for the younger, less experienced and less tenured writers. He mentioned in an interview on a news program reporting from the lines that this is about those writers who go long stretches between jobs. He makes a good point, as some writers may have a boon of work over a short period of time, but then have a dearth for long periods, even a few years. His, and the overall point, is that if these writers were compensated properly for all avenues their work finds itself, those dry periods would not be as severe.

The point is valid, but perhaps not completely thought through and brings us to the sixth key point those on the lines have missed. See, I feel bad the most for these writers because the short sightedness of those who are running their organization and orchestrating this strike could hurt them more in the long run. The writers may eventually win this battle, but they could lose the war. If the strike lasts for an extended period of time, the networks will gladly fill our entertainment gullets with reality programming, game shows, sports and anything else they can conjure that does not require scripts. If any of those should stick, the networks will keep them around long after the strike ends. If that happens, that means that a portion of the currently airing original programming will be bumped off the air in favor of the much cheaper to produce, and much higher profit generating, reality programming.

If this should occur, it will cause a domino effect that will put writers out of work, create a higher level of competition for less jobs, make it far more difficult for young fresh talent to break into the ranks and lead many of those “baby” writers the organization seems to be most concerned about right out to the unemployment line or even out of the business altogether. Because when available jobs shrink, the union will not protect the young ones, it will protect the longer tenured union members. Perhaps this is worst case scenario thinking, but someone in charge of what is happening should be thinking along these lines as well if they really do mean it when they profess their concern for the writers in their charge.

I do not want to come down on the writers or their union, nor is that my intention. As I said, I think their beef is justified. No one wants to pour blood sweat and tears into their toil only to see others profit from their efforts. But by overestimating the public’s concern for their cause and need for scripted television, underestimating the networks’ ability to overcome the lack of programming, ignoring alternate mediums in providing entertainment to the masses to compensate, disregarding the impact of their strike on others in the entertainment industry and the long term potential ramifications on their own members, I fear what they gain may overall be less than what they lose.

I hope they ultimately get the compensation they are seeking. Everyone wants to be fairly compensated for their efforts, and if people see one group or industry succeed they have hope that they can find the same sort of success as well. Personally, one day I could be a member of their ranks, and would love to be able to get paid for every avenue my work may find itself. I just hope the price they pay today for that victory does not turn out to be too high in the future.