David Young Defends WGA Strike
Is it WGA election time? In a message posted on the Writers Guild of America West website, Executive Director David Young is defending the 100 day strike last year. Young says he’s trying to “set the record straight” in the face of “a concerted effort underway by the AMPTP and some in the press to minimize the success of our strike, calling it ‘unnecessary’ and ‘self-destructive.
Young lists ten gains the WGA made over the AMPTP’s last offer prior to the strike, and offers support for SAG’s current TV-Theatrical stance:
“We salute SAG’s current effort to resist the AMPTP pushing their expiration date back to June of 2012. The AMPTP is determined to continue their time-tested strategy of ‘divide and conquer.’ We are determined to end that practice by building the unity of the entertainment unions on the basis of our common interests. We are doing everything we possibly can to hasten the day when, like the companies, multiple entertainment unions can sit down and bargain as one.”
Well, on the one hand, he’s right to say that the WGA established a beachhead in New Media, and he’s right to advocate a strategy of solidarity across all guilds and unions.
Where his analysis falls short, I think, is in glossing over reality/animation and “four cents per DVD” as marquee issues for the strike. New Media wasn’t necessarily the issue that was pushed front and center at all stages in the period leading up to and going through the strike.
Were home video residuals and reality/animation jurisdiction merely show demands to be used as bargaining chips? I think the “four cents per DVD” issue was a show demand: something easy to explain to the public, but something the Guild clearly was willing early on to trade for other gains.
Reality/animation, on the other hand, was probably much more important to Young and Verrone than this letter lets on. Young, remember, came to the WGA as Director of Organizing. His inability to make significant inroads into reality and animation must have been terribly frustrating. What’s strange is that his relative failure on that front earned him a promotion to Executive Director — where he pushed the dubious strategy of wresting jurisdiction from The Animators Guild and of creating jurisdiction in reality at the negotiating table or (if necessary) by striking.
It’s not entirely clear what the WGA won for giving up its reality/animation demands at the end of the strike. It is pretty clear that making that one of the central demands was a factor in precipitating and extending the strike: it was one of the six “non-starter” demands that the AMPTP cited as a reason not to return to the bargaining table.
The beat goes on…or is it the beating of our heads by these relentless circumstances. Hard to say which sometimes. On a related note, I just received the below in an e-mail. Can anyone comment with any authority on this information? Thanks.
“There is a RALLY this Wednesday, March 4, 2009 from 11am-2pm at Fox Studios, 10201 Pico Blvd at Motor Avenue. Unvalidated free parking across the street at Rancho Park.
Peter Chernin, CEO of Fox, has stated that there will be no reruns on Fox network, all programs will go directly to streaming on the internet, eliminating our residuals, contributions to health coverage and pensions. We must express our concern at this attack on our ability to earn a living and make it clear that we intend to vote NO on the contract.
In Solidarity
Scott Wilson”
Scott Wilson will say anything true OR false to draw and rile up a crowd and should not be trusted.
revionist history by Mr. Young.
I don’t think anybody actually believes what he has to say. Not only did Mr. Young forget to mention some key issues that supposedly were at the time key reasons to strike, the consensus both inside and outside the union was that the deal they got (although slightly better than the LBFO offer) was the same deal they could have gotten before the strike if they had dropped the same demands that they dropped at the end of the strike. The net from the strike was not any improvements on the contract, but that a lot of writers lost jobs.
As far as his support of SAG’s efforts and wanting to build unity amongst the guilds – Why in the hell didn’t he hold off on his strike until SAG’s contract ended in the summer and then he would have had his unity. It was no secret that SAG wanted to strike (at least SAG leadership) so there is no excuse for him not to wait.
http://www.thewrap.com/article/1630
#5 Your ” plea for transperancy” must include confessing to attempting to illegally jack this website .
Correcton – Hack not jack. Ipod spell checker does not like that word
Scott Wilson when i saw his photo, looks like a 1960′s burned out bum. His relation to SAG is more of an embarrassment for the membership than anything else.
Any attention he gets is out of a mild curiosity for an oddity rather than a poster boy for SAG.
I wouldn’t associate myself with the likes of Scott Wilson if he were the only other human being on a desert island. Yuk.
Marisa
Scott Wilson is an exceptional artist with a long, storied history, and a top-flight reputation as an actors actor.
He is also a winner of The Ralph Morgan Award for outstanding service to the Screen Actors Guild
You make yourself look even more foolish than normal when you speak of him with such disrespect.
Transpo
Where did I say I tried to jack this web-site? Care to copy and paste that statement?
And, believe me, the expense and effort to do such a thing is unnecessary.
David Young’s press release seems intended for Nikki Finke, who happily posted it with great enthusiasm.
The reality of the WGA Strike is unfortunately quite different from Young’s spin. He doesn’t acknowledge that the WGA gave up on DVDs before even going out on the picket line. He doesn’t acknowledge his attempt to put reality and animation back on the table along with total elimination of the “no strike” clause when the AMPTP agreed to return to talks after Thanksgiving. He doesn’t acknowledge the humiliation he suffered when Nick Counter presented him with the list of 6 items and made clear to him that he didn’t have the leverage he thought he had. He doesn’t acknowledge that the “flying picket” strategy intended to get Teamster support to shut down productions didn’t work. He doesn’t acknowledge the futile attempt to block filming permits in Los Angeles during the strike. And he doesn’t acknowledge that the DGA negotiations were what made it possible for John Bowman and the WGA’s counsel to re-open backchannel talks without Young or Verrone. Granted, the DGA likely achieved a little more than it would have normaly expected due to the WGA pickets, but that’s small comfort given the price the strike exacted from everyone else in the business.
It’s stunning that he refuses to take responsibility for his behavior and insists on blaming the AMPTP completely for the strike. That mentality can only lead to another action in 2011, unless he is replaced before then, as many people expect he will be.
The most egregious omission, though, has to do with his either negligent or deliberate misinformation to the WGA membership regarding their health coverage. During informational meetings before the strike was called, Young told the members that “the clock would stop” on their health coverage qualification periods during any picketing, meaning that their existing health coverage wouldn’t be in danger of expiring if they didn’t get the requisite hours by the usual deadlines. This was flat out wrong, as the membership discovered in January 08. And they weren’t told by Young – they found out by other means that o.ver 60 members were about to lose their coverage on April 1, and a much larger number was going to lose it as of July 1. To say this caused anger and consternation among the membership would be an understatement. It’s a Union 101 mistake, and it was undoubtedly a factor in the membership’s choice to ratify the deal that ended the strike in February.
And it goes without saying that Young’s choice to surprise the AMPTP with the early strike in November effectively killed SAG’s ability to muster a SAV to go out the following summer.
Young is entitled to his opinion, but history and this business have a longer memory than that.
Matt
Scott Wilson looks like a drugged out, strung out bum looking for the 1960′s to returen
If you don’t read his sign you’d assume it says “WILL WORK FOR FOOD” (no offense to those who need to…)
come on….please…i don’t care if he won an oscar..his whole story…of SAG SERVICE …MORE LIKE MF SERVICE is disgusting
just my opinion
“Disrespect” are you kidding Matt??? you just called Kathy Joosten “stupid” on anohter thread…pleased
#10 http://blog.sagwatch.net/category/miscellaneous-hate-mail-and-threats/
Oh wait, your idea of transperancy i “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours”. I guess your problem would be if you confessed, you would go to jail.
Kathy Joosten is no Scott Wilson – as an activist or an actor.
No jail Transpo – and I’m waiting for the copy and paste of where I said I tried to jack this site.
This site is increasingly vulnerable to exposure, and those who run it probably know that there are high-profile people combing through its archives right now looking for the case to be made against it in court. Anything that crosses the line (and there is plenty) is not good for Sagwatch.
My guess is this site will be gone in 6 months, because the operators ar on the verge of being exposed and they will be busy defending themselves in court, so, get your partisan on and type away – a new day is dawning.
#12: “just my opinion”
No, that’s not an opinion, that is a character assassination by a hater. You are so anti-MF, anti-standing up for actor’s rights, that anything or anyone who is not in your foxhole or wearing your team colors is bad. Scott represents what is good and noble about being an actor. A journeyman with a long career who has worked hard, He’s not some pampered star who has his own agenda shaping production company and multi-million dollar salary that is willing to sell out his SAG brothers and sisters. Now when the future is on the line he stands up for the rights of all actors, including you.
Marisa, I served with Scott Wilson: I know Scott Wilson, Scott Wilson is a SAG friend of mine. Marisa, you are no Scott Wilson.
Mikey
Mikey….I am no scott wilson…right you are….and proud of it…thanks for the compliment
as for my opinion goes…still a free country…right?
btw…who paid scott’s legal bills when he was suing his own union (SAG)? that’s real unionism…suing your own union…how come that’s not on his “sign”?
btw…if we are such “haters” how come none of us has stooped to checking scott wilson’s imbd credits…as if that’s reason to judge…they way you did to countless on this site?
Matt…so you are the judge and jury of who is or isn’t a good actor? hmm that’s interesting…who died and made you the “Academy”?
here we go with sagwatch….;
WE ARE SAGWATCH…WE’VE ALL ADMITTED TO IT…what’s your beef now?
Does anyone else hear the clacking of steel ball bearings?
14….The last I heard we still live in America, not an autocratic state. In America, it is legal to voice dissenting opinions. You should know that, if anyone, because your blistering diatribes are tolerated here even when people don’t like what you have to say. The editor of this blog has pointed that over and over again. You are free to “change the channel” if you don’t like what you read her but to threaten people with “exposure” for airing their opinons legally is taking it too far. These threats you make against SAGwatch are disturbing, Matt, not so much for their content as for the need you show to control the flow of information in a free society. Is it you and only you who decides what can and cannot be said? Is it you and only you who can insult people at will? Seriously, man, you really are walking down a slippery path when you start playing that card. I don’t think one single person on here is afraid of you at all. If anything, you just bolster the resolve of people who are done with these kind of divisve tactics.
Looks like Matt got out of his Trojan horse to early and is still outside on the sidewalk ranting with Scott Wilson.
Marisa wrote: “btw…if we are such “haters†how come none of us has stooped to checking scott wilson’s imbd credits…as if that’s reason to judge…they way you did to countless on this site?”
I don’t judge anyone on this site based on their credits. You’re being dishonest again. I would imagine the reason you don’t stoop to checking on Scott’s credits is because you already have and couldn’t possibly criticize the length and quality of his career. You attacked him for one reason and one reason only…he’s not on your side.
Also, start speaking for yourself. Are you so insecure that you have to always use the word “we” when responding to someone who disagrees with “you”? I know it’s much more convenient to make it look like you speak for everyone in your camp, but I called YOU a (DELETED BY WW).
Mikey
–
WW Comment: I’ve never seen anything that shows a link between number of credits and ability as a union leader, or even having good ideas. Acting talent simply isn’t enough.
Matt Mulhern posted a board members imbd credits on this site and then ridculed them and also accused said board member in so many words as being a hobbyist. and has done it consistently with people on this site. so WW i don’t see what your driving at…
WE all have wondered why such low ball tactics are used by Matt, Mikey, and most of that little Bulletin Board (sag actor) they are OBSESSED with people’s credits..and then they judge and mock. just disgraceful. WE think it’s disgraceful and insulting to all other actors when another actor judges anothers abilities or character…good or bad…based on credits.
I said what i thought about your embarrassing “poster boy” scott wilson and would say it again to his unshaven FACE. No Mikey, I never have checked his credits because I don’t CARE about his credits…
what i do care about is what a laughing stock he has become and by association SAG Actors have become by standing out in front of offices with a sign looking like “buddy can you spare a dime!!” i stick by that description of what i saw in the photograph depicting him on the internet.
Who paid for scott wilson’s lawyers when he sued SAG? Answer mikey…I dare you…
anything else?
Marisa: “WE all have wondered why such low ball tactics are used by Matt, Mikey, and most of that little Bulletin Board (sag actor) they are OBSESSED with people’s credits.”
You are accusing me of something I did not do. Try to separate reality from fiction. And stop lying about what I said. And from what I read over on the SAG Actor board, the reason you were bumped is because you were incredibly annoying and could not stay on point. Much like you here.
Re: Your question about Scott’s lawyers…I have no idea. Why don’t you ask him? Since I don’t know I would be just making wild uneducated guesses, that’s more your department.
Mikey
WW comment #21: as I said before, the notion that one union brother or sister is better or more worthy than another based on job classification, credits or other such criteria smacks of elitism and bourgeois classism, and it’s counter to the principle of trade unionism that all workers have equal merit and deserve equal rights and an equal voice in union matters.
I understand the notion that someone who’s ceased to work in a covered field shouldn’t participate with the full rights of a union member – like I wouldn’t try to vote in an IAMAW election because I am a past, not current, member. But all current members ought to be considered of equal value as union brothers and sisters, and their unionist credentials and credibility ought to be judged based on what they contribute to the union’s cause, not what their curricula vitae look like.
Marisa…
I applaud those of you who stand up for actors who are unfairly attacked based on their IMDB credits. These MF’rs go after A-list actors also, of course. Tom Hanks and George Clooney are two examples that immediately come to mind, along with the many “names” on the no-strike petition.
From my perspective, it doesn’t really seem to be matter what the quality of the credits are. It’s the mere fact that ANYONE who disagrees with them will be subjected to the worst kind of ridicule and insults. Like a pack of wolves, they look for where they feel people are most vulnerable in hopes of disorienting and demoralizing them. When seen in that light, their tact is simple. If an actor has no substantial credits they are “hobbyists” or have no talent. If they are big names, they must be producers themselves (i.e. “the enemy”)…or…at the very least…”above it all” actors who are in the pockets of producers and have forgotten from whence they came. Conversely, if you should agree with them, you are either a noble and struggling actor who deserves their benevolent protection or a name actor who is “brave enough” to step forward for the cause.
What I still don’t understand is how they got it in their heads that they have a right to play God to start with and that their opinion is all that matters?
(Sigh) All I can say is keep a lot of wood on the fires. Wolves don’t like the heat.
Redanty
You are the poster-child for the big bowl of wrong NY has become. If you want to help your little “WE” clique? You should keep your mouth shut. You are not helping all… 58 of your “Me’s”
Pointing out the absurdity of members who don’t work the contract being leading advocates of what people who DO work the contract should do, is just common sense. I wouldn’t weigh in on the commercials contract because – I don’t do commercials.
And the credits thing? Maybe you should ask for some help with that. Go ask Richard Masur about Scott Wilson. If Masur has any integrity at all, I’d imagine he’d tell you to down-low the “Scott Wilson looks like a bum and I don’t CARE what he’s done as an actor” talk.
Even Masur knows the respect Scott has earned. You have earned none. Don’t disparage a wonderful actor, Ralph Morgan Award winner and long-time union advocate, without checking with your puppet-masters first. They probably want you to help their cause, not continue to make an ass of yourself. You’re getting criticized by your own peeps here on Sagwatch. That should tell you something.
#25 Aren’t we there…
I have a friggin’ FOREST full of wood…they don’t scare me one darn bit. bullies need to be pushed back down.
and WE WILL PUSH THEM DOWN…REALLY QUICK…WE WILL STICK THIER NOSES INTO THEIR OWN FILTH. WHO PAID SCOTT WILSON’S LEGAL FEES WHEN HE SUED SAG??? THAT’S THEIR FILTH…YOU’LL SEE
sorry for the caps
marisa
MIKEY…i assume you are one of matt’s several posting names….sorry but that’s what i think…prove me wrong.
26:
First of all, Matt, I hope you aren’t referring to my comment to Marisa and others when you say she is being “criticized” by her own peeps. I haven’t really seen any criticism in what I, or anyone else wrote…except perhaps in yours and the other usual MF supporters comments (of which we don’t really know how many are simply you).
Second, I love another statement that you made…let me repeat that…LOVE IT!! Here’s why… You wrote :
“Pointing out the absurdity of members who don’t work the contract being leading advocates of what people who DO work the contract should do, is just common sense.”
Great!! If you really believe that, why were you not horrified when Alan Rosenberg, Doug Allen, Ann Marie Johnson and your other heroes did not allow the presenters of the Affected Member Petition in the board room so many months ago? Even though they had over a 1000 signatures of WORKING actors, did they not have the right to be at least heard? Instead, they were muzzled and sent packing.
Once again, you bury yourself in your own hypocrisy. If it’s not MF’s idea, it doesn’t fly, right? It’s okay as long as it comes from you and your buddies. The more I watch you do this spin, the more amazed I am because for such a seemingly intelligent guy, you are an absolute fool when it comes to keeping your foot out of your mouth.
Are We There Yet? #25:
Here’s an illuminating book that deals with your question:
http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Left-Illiberal-Egalitarianism/dp/0700608753
I guess you haven’t heard the news or read the posts, or had some coffee “Are We There Yet” but, I’ve been quite critical of MF lately, and I’m sort of persona non grata as a result. It’s called independent thinking. You might try it.
And, I respect their hard, hard work, and the tough hide it takes to deal with the mud slinging, but my “heroes?” No, just people I respect. Nor, as Ligon keeps suggesting, do I take dictation for MF. I just write what I think. Sometimes wrong, sometimes right, put hopefully, starting to move in the right direction – which is clearly away from the politics of the past, towards a much more open union that utilizes the tools of technology to make participation easy, easy, easy – as it should be.
You should take note – in national politics, the only party arguing against ease of voting – and they have been for decades – are the Republicans. Surprise, surprise, surprise…
And how trying to have people who work the actual contract having direct involvement in whether it’s good for that portion of the membership, instead of, say, a disc jockey, or a voice-over artist? I don’t think you can quite square that logically as my endorsing qualified voting. I don’t follow the logic on that one. I wouldn’t weigh in on either commercials or voice over work, because I wouldn’t really know all that much about what’s truly important to those people as far as what they need to compete, what gives them a fair shot, and how they can best retain their wages, working conditions and residuals, and – hey, call me crazy – even IMPROVE all of that.
I, in fact, think it’s great that everybody has input, and opinion, and that there is some passion for this particular moment in time as SAG fights for it’s life, while it’s siamese twin has both (well, that would, in fact, be one) hand around it’s own throat, but I’m not gonna tell folks who make their living doing commercials what’s best for them, nor would I tell voice – over folks what’s best for them.
If you put yourself out there, you should be experienced in that contract. i think it helps enormously with the rubber-meets-the-road aspects of any deal. Someone who actually DOES it will immediately say “oh – that’s not that big a deal – but THAT is” whereas, for instance Keri Tombazian, who is a DJ and does voice work, has NEVER worked the TV/Theatrical contract, yet every time I turn around, she’s telling us what we should do – on the TV/Theatrical contract. That’s just a recipe for rejection, and the reason so many folks roll their eyes and skip the post when it’s the DJ chick weighing in.
And, finally, anybody who suggests qualified voting? – will be sent packing – unless UFS gets it’s way – and cuts out the whole “democracy thing.” There actually ARE stunningly bad ideas from people who work TV Theatrical – and qualified voting is the high water mark for stupidity and the quickest way to alienate the membership. That’s why UFS backed off it like parole for child molesters. They didn’t get a, shall we say, positive response. It’s about as politically smart as arguing AGAINST transparency, live streaming, and electronic voting.
—
Admin. Comment – It’s been pointed out previously that Mulhern is often wrong when he discussed other people and their careers. This appears to be no different.
Getting back to the original subject of this thread, that of David Young’s attempted whitewash of last year’s strike, I note that Nikki Finke is waxing nostalgic again. Two more paens to the glory days of the strike have appeared on her blog – looking back to the good old days when picket lines graced the studio backlots and lots of comments and hits graced her site.
The only response I can think of is to show patience and have some confidence that as people look back on the events of the past two years, they’ll have a clearer understanding of what actually happened, and what a negative impact Ms. Finke actually had.
–
Admin. Comment – Actually, she’s up to FIVE now.
Spin, spin, spin…that’s all you do, Matt. You keep generalizing about things like voiceover actors, when there are many voiceover actors I know who perform under the very same SAG daily or weekly contracts that on-camera actors do. You’ve decided that you know everything about everything and that it will be YOU who decides who is worthy. Now you’ve declared yourself as an independent thinker, yet you’ve been drinking the MF kool aid for as long as I can remember. And you wonder why people find you so hypocritical? The more you profess to know, the less you appear to REALLY know. Worse than that, you stir always manage to stir in a good dose of this well-developed superiority complex you have. You can’t resist making condescending remarks like “You might try it”..or “You should take note” Apparently, I missed the news. God died and put you in his place. Is that it?
When are the Membership Firsters going to put away this “Ralph Morgan Award” horse twonkey?
They’ve used that “prestigious” Hollywood award manure to bolster their political hacks like Wilson and McCord – both of whom should be carted away to the Museum of the Puffed and Swollen.
It’s a ruse, a sad political game – it’s the use of an “award” to attempt to give some kind of special “hook” or imprimatur to any party apparatchik who works to harm the guild sufficiently.
When will members in Hollywood sweep these people out of office for good and allow the guild to get back to the business of caring for actors rather than forcing them onto the unemployment lines?
MARISA: ” i assume you are one of matt’s several posting names….sorry but that’s what i think…prove me wrong.”
I couldn’t care less about your assumptions. You are prone to conspiracy theories and probably wear a tin foil hat when you post. You are incapable of doing anything but sling insults and to you MF is the root of all the problems in the world. Hurricane in the Bahamas? MF is to blame. Drought in California? Those damn MF people. Economy doing bad? Alan Rosenberg is responsible. God I hope the weather is good tomorrow for you New Yorkers, because if it’s not, MF will be the reason.
You are incapable of participating in any kind of discussion about SAG. Absolutely incapable. You are now officially placed on IGNORE.
Mikey
Mikey…LOL what a riot…..you just described yourself…!!! I love it…
The only conspiracy in question centers on this: Members should be informed if SAG chooses to pay for another members legal fees if that member sues SAG….i guess that information is public record for the members or should be.