WGA West 2011 Elections
WGA Candidate Questionnaire 2011
Today’s date: 08.14.2011
Name: Ari B. Rubin
Specify WGA East or WGA West: WGAW
Position that you’re running for: Board of Directors
Current officer or Board/Council position, if any: N/A
Your website(s), if any: www.aribrubinforwga.com
Website(s) for your slate, group, party or alliance, if any: N/A
Background
• Please describe yourself in a sentence or two.
Since graduating college I have been a screenwriter, both for independent companies and the studios. Simultaneously, I have worked in local and national politics and will carry those skills and connections with me if elected to the Board.
• What's your background as a writer: how did you come to writing, what do you like about it, what are some key credits, and can you share any interesting experiences or an anecdote or two?
In my first interaction at the WGA in 2004, a grizzled organizer told the attendees at our new members meeting, “Look around. A decade from now, only one in ten of you will still be a writer. So start planning your second career now.” His joyless mood aside, he was right. We work in a perilous industry.
I, of course, assumed I’d be the one in ten -- until last year, when the dream collapsed. For a long time, my film career seemed ascendant. But not one of my films had yet been released. And when my pinnacle project -- a tentpole at Warner Brothers with an A-list director -- unraveled, the phones stopped ringing. To the studios, I was kryptonite.
I wound up on unemployment. I was filled with doubt. I remember asking every Oscar-winning WGA member I could find, “How do you know that you’re a good writer?” “I don’t,” they responded. “I’m only as good as someone else tells me.”
“Does your career have cycles,” I asked. “Of course,” they exclaimed. “I think every film is my last.” “So what convinces you to keep writing,” I would demand. They pondered for a moment. Then each gave the same answer: “Because it’s all I know how to do.”
For as long as I can remember, I have always loved film. But there was also a part of me thrilled by politics. Film has the ability to guide through emotion. Politics could empower through rousing oratory and sage policy. I saw film and politics as different means to the same end. I had studied government in college and dabbled in it professionally. It was the other thing I knew how to do. And now, if the film door was closing, I decided I had no choice but to work in the other.
For all of last year, I devoted myself on the political path. I expanded my writing skills in journalism and networked like a devil. I began contributing as an outside consultant, and busied myself climbing the ladder.
But a funny thing happened -- the screenwriting never stopped. In fact, as soon as I removed the unrelenting pressure to perform, I began writing new projects with abandon. The pain of thinking my career was over brought its own emotional vigor.
And finally, perhaps as a result, early this summer I sold a spec script to HBO. This while simultaneously I continued on the political track, climbing to the position of policy co-director on the Janice Hahn for Congress campaign -- a political dream job. Writing was not the only thing I knew how to do, but I will always hunger to do it. And I discovered that becoming a policy wonk in fact made me a better writer.
I would not wish career trouble on anyone, but it took me the struggle to gain a valuable lesson: a film career has unavoidable cycles. We grow through the ups and downs -- that is, if we can manage to hang on.
• What guilds or unions (including the WGA, of course) are you a member of, and when did you join?
I joined the WGAW in 2004.
• What other entertainment industry organizations, if any, are you a member of? (Motion Picture Academy, TV Academy, BAFTA, professional associations, etc.)
N/A
• Please list your WGA service experience (boards, committees, etc.), if any. Also, list any awards or honors you’ve received from the WGA that relate to service to the Guild. Feel free to also list service experience and service awards or honors relating to other unions, guilds or entertainment industry organizations. Please omit awards for writing work, such as WGA Awards, Oscars, Emmys, etc. (see below for these).
I serve on the WGA’s Publicity and Marketing Committee, Writers Education Committee and WGA PAC subcommittee. I have served on both the Board and Officer nominating committees. I taught screenwriting to inner-city high school students and to military veterans with the Writers Guild Foundation. During the 2007 strike, I was a strike captain, served on the Strike Fund Committee and co-created the Writers Fund to help Hollywood professionals out of work. Through my time at the Guild I have chaired and moderate two educational events and co-hosted many more.
• What WGA contracts and in what media do you frequently work: theatrical, network TV, pay TV, basic cable, daytime dramas (soap operas), new media, animation, nonfiction/documentary/reality, other?
I have worked entirely in features -- through specs sales, original pitches and contract jobs. I have written both for independent production companies and the major studios.
• What kind(s) of work do you frequently do – original screenplays/teleplays, adapted screenplays/teleplays, assignments, rewrites, staff writer, other?
My writing has been a combination of original ideas and stories based on historical events. Each has demanded months of research -- an aspect of my film career that connects directly to my policy work.
In addition to film writing, I have also worked as a journalist, producing feature articles and opinion pieces for such publications as the Huffington Post and Politico.
• Do you frequently (or ever) act, direct, produce or play other roles in theatrical, television, new media or other projects?
“… but what I really want to do is direct!” Not yet. But soon.
• Are there other aspects of your life you’d like to share with voters – political involvement, community or charitable service, teaching, other creative endeavors, other employment experience, educational background, hobbies, etc.?
My political career has included working as a communications and policy consultant for New Dehli-based advocacy organization Aadhar India and the green energy firm Eos Consulting. I served most recently as the policy co-director on the Janice Hahn for Congress campaign. The skills and connections of the political world would be directly beneficial to my service on the Board.
Less directly beneficial -- though fun to mention -- is that I am a licensed pilot and multi-engine flight instructor, a licensed EMT and a marathon runner/triathlete.
• Please list any awards or honors for writing work, such as WGA Awards, Oscars, Emmys, etc. Please specify the project and type (TV, theatrical, etc.) and indicate the type of award, such as original screenplay, adapted screenplay, etc. Please list any other awards or honors, such as for community or charitable service.
Does the Hollywood Black List count??
Candidacy
• Why are you running?
Having survived and learned from my recent career swing -- failure to success -- I recognize more than ever the need for guidance in this business. This is how our Guild can become essential. The WGA must become a powerful ally that keeps the troughs of our career cycles short, and the peaks reaching ever higher. Not an entitlement fund or an employment agency, but a defender and toolkit; one that empowers every member to reach our own maximum potential.
With my broad resume -- both Hollywood and political -- I am the only candidate in the race to offer a comprehensive policy solution to the challenges we face. While always reserving our right to strike, this proposal would strengthen our membership immediately and without disruption to our working lives. As a Board member, I will dedicate myself to seeing the Writers to Work Plan realized. (Please join me at my website or find at the end of this document the Writers to Work Planin full.)
If I am elected to the WGA Board, I will devote myself to the material improvement of each writer’s career. We can make our Guild the powerful defender we deserve. We all began as outsiders, looking at this union as a city on the hill, a privileged club we dreamt of joining and growing within. It is time we see the dream fulfilled. Our Guild is as strong as the sum of its members, and so it is beholden to its leaders to help each of us become the best storyteller, businessman, and filmmaker we can be.
• Are you running as part of a slate, group, party or alliance? Why or why not? If so, which one(s)?
I am running as an independent. I’ll be frank in answering why.
There is a part of me that wishes one of the officer candidates had asked me to run with them. None have. I have limited name recognition and it would sure be nice to tap into the campaign machinery of a slate. But if one did ask, I would have said no. That’s the honest answer. I offer it for two reasons.
First, while I think there are times when slates are appropriate, now is not one of them. Slates become valuable when unity of purpose is most important. When the Guild is on the verge of a strike and the AMPTP is using every trick to break writers’ resolve, a cohesive Board is a valuable weapon. But this is not a negotiation election (next contract is in 2014). And I truly believe that the challenges writers face today need to be solved not by force but with innovative solutions intelligently employed. The ideal Board today is one filled with smart, independent thinkers, each willing to work hard individually to see collective goals realized.
Second, I’m not good at blindly following orders. My whole life I have reasoned through problems, identified solutions, and worked with all parties to move the ball forward. I have consistently reached across the proverbial aisle in state and federal politics because I believe neither side has a monopoly on good ideas. On the Guild Board, I will work with all members and encourage progress over inaction.
For all of these reasons, I do not believe that slate politics is an effective strategy in this election.
• Have you previously run as part of any slates, groups, parties or alliance? Which ones, and when?
No.
• (a) If you’ve previously run as part of any slates, groups, parties or alliance at any time from 2005 onward, and are now running as part of a different slate, group, party or alliance or as an independent, why the change? (b) If you’ve previously run as an independent at any time from 2005 onward and are now running as part of any slates, groups, parties or alliance, why the change? (c) Otherwise, just write “Not applicable.”
N/A
• Has your candidacy been endorsed by anyone (other than your slate, group, party or alliance, if any)?
I have been endorsed by A-list writers, Guild leaders and countless hard working and dedicated members. My supporters include:
John Wells (Current WGA President), Elias Davis (Former Secretary Treasurer), Irma Kalish (Former WGA Vice President), Christopher Knopf (Former WGA President), Daniel Petrie, Jr. (Former WGA President) and Adam Rodman (Former Secretary Treasurer).
Chris Brancato (Board Member WGA Foundation), Thomas Cook (Former Board Member), Scott Frank, (Former Board Member) Katherine Fugate (Current Board Member), Stephen Gaghan (2007 Negotiating Committee), Howard Michael Gould (Former Board Member and Negotiating Committee), Mark Gunn (Current Board Member and Negotiating Committee), Robert Nelson Jacobs (Board Member WGA Foundation), Nicholas Kazan (Former Board Member and Negotiating Committee), Callie Khouri (Former Board Member), Kathy Kiernan (Current Board Member), Craig Mazin (Former Board Member), Jeff Melvoin (Former Board Member), Aaron Mendelsohn (Current Board Member), Steven Schwartz (Current Board Member and Negotiating Committee), Robin Swicord (Board Member WGA Foundation), Matthew Weiner, (Board Member WGA Foundation) and Bryce Zabel (Former Board Member).
Michael Arkof, Richard Arthur, Doug Atchison, Karen Berger, Nancy Bliven, Wendy Calhoun, W Bruce Cameron, Steve Chivers, Maisha Closson, Josh Cohen, Michael Conley, Tony DeSena, Diane Driscoll, Robert Eisele, Maria Escobedo, Jennifer Flackett, Mike Flynn, Jeffrey Forsyth, Gary Goldstein, Tracy Grant, Erika Green Swafford, Matt Gunn, Winnie Holzman, Margaret Howell, Peter Hunziker, David Israel, Marqui Jackson, Anna Elizabeth James, Richard Jefferies, Alexis Krasilovsky, Dale Kutzera, Miranda Kwok, Peter Landesman, Brian Leff, Mark Levin, Maria Maggenti, Randi Mayem Singer, Christiana Miller, Mark Miller, George Nolfi, Joyce Perry, Jesse Peyronel, Kenneth Pisani, Cynthia Riddle, Maria Elena Rodriguez, Joshua Rubin, Bruce Joel Rubin, Derek Rydall, Matt Selman, Al Septien, Janine Sherman Barrois, P.K. Simonds, Kat Smith, Bill Taub, Rawson Thurber, Susan Walter, Stephen Watkins, Roger Wolfson, Josan Wright, Evan Wright and Jerry Zucker.
• Who, if anyone, is financing your candidacy? How much money do you anticipate raising or spending on your campaign?
I am entirely self-financing. An unmentioned secret of these races is the cost. Board candidates will often spend hundreds of dollars on advertisements, websites, media, et al. Officer candidates can see races costing in the thousands, with much of that money devoted to candidate parties that give members and candidates the opportunity to meet and discuss issues.
• If you’re running as part of a slate, group, party or alliance, who, if anyone, is financing its activities? How much money does it anticipate raising or spending on its activities in 2011?
N/A
• How can voters learn more about you (in addition to the website(s) you listed on p. 1)? Feel free to provide an email address if you’d like, but remember that this document will be publicly available and will be posted on the Internet.
I have discussed all the issues in depth on my websitewww.aribrubinforwga.com.
Also on the website is myWriters to Work Plan, which lays out my fundamental goals for growing the Guild, as well as the opportunity to contact me and discuss concerns one-on-one.
I encourage every WGA member to attend any of the campaign events being hosted by the Guild or the candidates themselves. I will be at many of them.
Wages, Working Conditions and Contracts
• What forms, if any, of downward pressure on writers’ wages are prevalent, if any? If any, why did this happen, and what can or should the Guild do about it?
This is not conjecture. Screenwriter earnings are down 10 percent from last year. Industry-wide, there are 10 percent fewer writers employed today than in 2007 despite increasing corporate profits. The specific causes are well-reported: lower episodic fees and residual rates in the fastest growing form of television writing -- basic cable. More writing being done for non-Guild signatories; foreign or in animation for instance. And on the screen side, less overall development, fewer films being made, more competition amongst writers and lower rates all around.
Make no mistake about it, we face an existential threat in the writing profession. If left unaddressed, 10 years from now there will be no middle-class in the Hollywood ladder, without which the world’s most innovative creative industry will be upended. Will film, TV and web series still be made? Of course. But will Hollywood continue to be the world leader in media. No.
Historically, job creation has not been the WGA’s focus. But with downward economic pressures from all sides, the Guild remains one of the few institutions able to forcibly resist. To grow the market, the WGA must recommit itself to four programs:
1) Heightened MBA Enforcement. The Guild loses far too much ground in contract negotiations defending rights we already have. We need to improve reporting of infractions by better tracking of members’ contracts, soliciting concerns both through Guild polling and direct communication and allowing an anonymous reporting option. We should create a “company watch list” to warn members of non-complying producers. We also need to dramatically improve the working relationship between the WGA contract department and members’ lawyers.
2) Continue the Studio Report Card Initiative. A decade ago, an annual “report card” on each studio’s compliance with creative rights -- such as Film By credit and on-set visitations -- led to jealous competition amongst studio heads and a resulting improvement in behavior. A similar report card system has been proposed for new creative rights issues.
3) Expand the Committees on the Professional Status of Writers Program. The CPSW was established in 1988 to motivate better working conditions through dialogue with studio heads. These meetings should be expanded to include low-level creative executives and corporate leaders above the studio head. We should work in tandem with members’ agents and managers in this process.
4) Create New Producers. This is the strongest mechanism for growth and the most challenging to pursue. As a long-term initiative, the Guild should encourage new production entities by offering favorable contract terms to companies like Netflix, Google, and DirecTV in exchange for improved writer ownership and control. At the same time we must continue our efforts to sign one-off deals with international companies, advertisement agencies and video game producers. Where organizing by industry is too hard, we must organize show by show -- as we did successfully with Comedy Central.
I discuss all of these issues more in following questions.
We can no longer ignore our union as a partner in rehabilitating writers’ standings. When times are flush, it is fair to encourage more entrepreneurialism amongst members. But with writers’ wages being crushed across the board, the Guild remains one of the few untapped resources for writers to turn to.
• Are there fewer jobs now (compared to the past) in various areas? Which areas? If so, why did this happen, and what can or should the Guild do about it?
As mentioned in the previous answer, according to the WGA’s annual report, screenwriting employment is down 10 percent from 2007 and TV writing is down six percent in the same time period. The number of WGA writers working in new media is still infinitesimal. Simultaneously, working conditions -- as reported anecdotally and through WGA polling -- have turned abysmal. More work is being demanded before the first check is cut. And everyone is feeling pressured -- writers, representatives, executives and studio heads.
Remember -- the problem is not lack of money. Total media earnings grew 3 percent from 2009 to 2010, and are projected to grow even faster for the next five years. By 2015, according to a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers, total industry earnings will be $555 billion (including advertising). This is not about diminishing revenues. It is absolutely about one issue: fairness.
• Are theatrical writing deals more likely today to be single-step rather than multi-step deals? If so, why did this happen, and what can or should the Guild do about it?
An internal WGA poll taken in 2009 saw that the majority of deals had become one-step. By all accounts, multi-step deals are now the aberration. This is one of many consequences caused by the heightened competition. It degrades the working experience, quality of writing and ultimately the profitability of the project. We need to push back against one-step deals as part of our larger effort to reclaim writers’ status in Hollywood.
• Are there fewer TV writer-producer deals (overall/housekeeping/development deals) than in years past? If so, why did this happen, and what can or should the Guild do about it?
Competition in television has increased dramatically as big-name screenwriters emigrate from film. Many established writers are entering TV as showrunners. The demand at the bottom has not diminished, so what we see is a weakening ladder for promotion. Or in other words, there are fewer opportunities for fledgling TV writers to grow their careers.
The solution to the problem in television requires jumpstarting writing work throughout the industry. Writers at the highest level must be adequately compensated, but not at the expense of squeezing out the middle class. Remember -- the A-list of tomorrow has to climb up from the bottom tiers of today.
• Are residuals checks paid and processed quickly enough? If not, who is responsible for the delay, and what can or should the Guild do about it?
In short, no. Everyone knows this is a problem. Some companies are certainly better than others. But there is simply no excuse. And we have even seen companies take steps to aggravate the problem, by shipping their accounting departments to other states leading to even slower rates of payment. (The companies say outsourcing saves money. I agree. Anytime you hold millions of dollars locked up in interest bearing accounts instead of paying wages, the companies save money.) Unfortunately, the burden for following up on the missing residuals falls too often on agents or writers themselves.
This is an enforcement issue. Our rules are clear. And the studios are breaking them. Furthermore, five percent of residuals go completely unpaid through company error or omission. Complete and timely payment is a must. This must be an integral component of a reinvigorated Guild enforcement regime.
One additional tool that the WGA already has and which has been woefully neglected is the Tri-Guild Audit. This program, funded with nearly $1 million by the AMPTP, pays for an outside firm to check studios’ books and assure that all monies due to talent are paid. From 2004 to 2008, this audit was not performed at all.
In the past two years, executive director David Young and a stellar WGA Board member, Steven Schwartz, revived the program. It has been enormously successful in turning up unpaid wages and improving relationships with the other guilds. But Schwartz is leaving the Board. Studio resistance and poor cooperation between guilds could leave the audit orphaned. This would be a hugely wasted opportunity. Recommitting to a consistent and effective auditing program will assure faster residual payment, fewer lingering conflicts with the studios and stronger inter-guild soldiarity.
• How can or should the Guild help members better understand how their particular TV, theatrical or other residuals were calculated, so that members will have more ability to determine whether they’ve been paid properly and on time? Should the Guild create a web page, accessible only to members (and perhaps their agents and lawyers) that will allow members to see the calculation in a step by step, explanatory fashion?
The residual formulas are already available online! The Guild has an entire residual survival guide.
(Yes, this opens another discussion about the WGA’s website and making information more readily available. That is a major concern of mine but a separate focus.)
Writers have enough on their plates without feeling they need to be tracking their own residuals. What the Guild must do is make sure writers can trust the efforts being made on their behalf. Improved coordination between the Guild’s residual department and members’ representatives should be a key part of this.
• Is it appropriate that the Guild is collecting and disbursing foreign royalties? Why or why not? (DGA, SAG and WGA are doing this. On behalf of members and non-members. Foreign royalties are different from residuals, and are not mentioned in the collective bargaining agreements.) Is the Guild doing a good job at this? Why or why not? What if any improvement is needed?
The foreign levies program has been unfairly tarnished by critics, and more worrisomely, poorly explained to members. Foreign levies are a special tax on media colleted by 17 different countries, which for many years was given wholesale to the studios. In the late 1980s, the WGA and DGA worked together to garner 50 percent (25 percent per Guild) of that money for the members -- the creators of the media these governments taxed. This was a big win and a worthy program, one that has won some $90 million for writers.
The tarnishing occurred when a non-member filed a lawsuit against the WGA for also collecting monies belonging to non-WGA writers. The irony of this lawsuit is that the Guild never wanted this role in the first place -- the requirement to distribute money to members and non-members was imposed upon the WGA by these governments who had no interest in dividing the money themselves. The lawsuit was settled out of court, but the upshot is that the WGA is now saddled with the costly burden of tracking down non-members to give them European tax dollars. I have nothing but respect for the WGA’s role in this program, and I wish we could better educate all members and observers to what occurred.
• Apart from wage and residuals issues, what are the key problems that members face on the job and how can or should the Guild reduce the frequency of these issues?
Late pay and residuals are the tip of the iceberg. With heightening competition, working conditions have degraded unacceptably. For screenwriters: sweepstakes pitching, free rewrites, one-draft deals, loss of separated rights and prohibitively difficult reacquisition terms. For TV writers: paper-writing teams, one-day-a-week staff writers being hired as producers and the incredible indecency of basic cable writers being paid a fraction of what their network brethren earn despite comparable revenues between shows.
Some of these deprivations -- reacquisition and basic cable parity for instance -- are in the MBA and must be addressed in negotiations. But many are rights we already have and which employers are manipulating or blatantly disregarding. The Guild can only improve writers’ working lives markedly through better enforcement.
I am not the first Board candidate to call for heightened enforcement. But there is a reason that past efforts have failed. And the lack of progress is a weight dragging all members down. It spreads hopelessness and apathy. The first step to rejuvenating the Guild is to engage this challenge head on.
I believe there are three broad efforts we must take to see a real enforcement regime establsihed. Our failure in this campaign before was because we never followed through on early initiatives or left out one of these key components. We must not make the same mistake now.
1) Institutional Will
First, better enforcement is not accretive. If we let up on the effort, wins of the past do not stick and we must start from scratch when contract infractions again snowball. As a Guild, we too often vacillate between enforcement and organizing. Wrongly, we assume this is an either/or choice. It is not. But because leadership often thinks it so, they withdraw nearly all resources from one to devote to the other. This has been the case for the past five or more years (yes, through different presidential administrations).
We have made great gains in organizing. But it has come at the cost of huge losses in contract adherence. Writing conditions now are as bad as they have ever been -- if not the worst we have faced. We cannot succeed as a Guild if we spend every negotiation trying to protect the rights we already have.
Writers must recommit to enforcement as a priority. That message should begin with the Board. But then the membership should be educated to precisely the violations that are occurring and the steps that will be taken. The membership in turn must agree to participate -- if only as expressed through numerous small member meetings and a revived captain system. And this heightened level of communication must be maintained for the drive to persist. If members willingly forgo their own rights, to do free rewrites for instance because a producer or agent convinces them it is in their own best interest, then the Guild is hamstrung. Writers need to know that every other member is adhering to the same rules and that ultimately creative protections benefit their work.
Moreover, we need to see broad agreement from writers at all ranks. One of the only ways for writers to change working conditions -- unlike IATSE or SAG whose every member has the power to stop production -- is for the big name talent like showrunners, A-list screenwriters or writer/performers like Jon Stewart to assist. Thus the institutional will needs to be expressed at all ranks.
We have neither seen nor sought such unanimity since the 2007 strike. And rarely do we reach it in peacetime. But we need it moving forward and it can be achieved.
2) Internal Reporting
The old refrain is true: the Guild cannot enforce the contract if it is unaware of infractions. We need to make sure that when the MBA is not adhered to, Guild staff is made aware. Part of this will occur naturally as enforcement efforts are won and members feel that they will actually see benefits in reporting -- members will be more inclined to reach out to staff and ask for help. But there are specific tools we can institute to make reporting easier.
· Scientific polling and anonymous reporting options. The Guild should mandate an annual poll of members, using an outside firm, to assess working conditions and the reputation of each company. Combined with an anonymous reporting option (available online), the Guild can publish a list of “poor-compliance producers“ so that members can be informed about working conditions at a given firm before agreeing to write for them.
· Member outreach through the captain system and direct contact from the contracts department. While polling and anonymous reporting can provide a general overview of conditions, the Guild will always need to pursue targeted enforcement as well. Because of limited resources, most Guild enforcement now occurs when a member informs the contracts department of a violation. We should instead give our staff the resources to check in regularly with each working member to ask about conditions. And we should use the captain system to assist in that process, making the reporting of violations a much less effortful task.
· Improved working alliance with members’ representatives. Most importantly staff needs to know what members are working on and what their contract terms are. WGA rules require that every member submit each new working contract to the Guild. Yes, when you get a job, you are supposed to the give Guild your contract. How may actually do that? Until my most recent job, I never did. I didn’t know I was supposed to. In order to facilitate this sharing of information, the Guild should not have to rely on members entirely, but encourage better coordination with members’ lawyers and agents. Currently, this relationship is strained. Many members’ lawyers have little confidence in Guild enforcement. We need to turn this around through focused outreach, and make sure that staff and representation are working in tandem.
3) Enforcement Tools
The actual mechanisms of enforcement need the least attention. The Guild enforcement department just needs the member support and coordination to do its job. That said, there are a few other program we should add to the mix.
· Agent/lawyer/manager coordination. As mentioned a moment ago, we should create a strong working alliances between the WGA staff and members’ representatives. Far too often these parties are working at odds.
· The Studio Report Card. A decade ago, an annual “report card” on each studio’s compliance with creative rights -- such as Film By credit and on-set visitations -- led to jealous competition amongst studio heads and a resulting improvement in studio behavior. A similar report card system has been proposed for new creative rights issues, such as sweepstakes pitching, free rewrites, and late pay. Studio presidents are a competitive lot, and we can use a tool like this to coax them into better compliance.
· The Committee on the Professional Status of Writers. As discussed previously, the CPSW is an MBA-mandated dialogue between established writers and studio heads. These meetings should be expanded to include low-level creative executives and corporate leaders. We should work in tandem with members’ agents and managers in this process as well, a request the agencies have already made. Many executives will be uninfluenced by this soft-power approach. But the collective impact of voicing grievances and connecting poor working conditions to poor profitability will help.
Make no mistake about it, better enforcement will demand a sea change in writer behavior and Guild mission. It has been called for and unrealized for so long because the commitment has lapsed. But if there were ever a time to double down and see this effort through, it is now. Writers do have the power to effect great change in the industry. Members merely need the will and leadership to rise collectively and see the goal won.
• What are some key concerns of specific categories of members – theatrical, network TV, pay TV, basic cable, daytime dramas (soap operas), animation, nonfiction/documentary/reality, other? How well is the Guild addressing those issues and what changes, if any, are needed?
I think my list of issues is growing overwhelming! If any writer feels I have left a core concern unaddressed in my other answers -- especially in under-addressed fields like animation, daytime and news writing -- please share your concerns. Contact me through my website or write directly at ari@aribrubin.com. There is a scarcity of representation on the Board for many of these groups. But not having a CBS news writer in leadership does not excuse the Guild from representing this constituency -- or any other.
• How well is the Guild addressing issues of non-discrimination, equal opportunity and diversity for women, people of color, LGBT people, people with disabilities, older writers, and others? What changes, if any, are needed?
A recent report by the WGA captured the tragic disparity in employment for minority groups. Women make up only 17 percent of all working writers, down from the previous year. For racial minorities the numbers are grimmer: only one in 20 working screenwriters is non-white. This is unacceptable.
The WGA cannot dictate which writers studios hire, but we must strive to assure every writer has an equal chance. I support the WGA’s Writer Access Project, which works to connect minority writers with producers and showrunners. I will encourage an effort, already underway, to expand this program to feature writing. And I vow to fight the old boys club attitude often seen in our Guild, with the goal of prominent Guild and business involvement for all comers.
Since showrunners and production companies choose their employees, and since they so often hire writers they know, we must ultimately address this issue by better integrating socially. How can the Guild facilitate this? Any opportunity for diverse groups of writers to not only break bread but actually work side by side will create potential inroads. This means more women, non-whites, et al. on the board and in Guild committees. This means more diversity writers in other Guild programs like the showrunner training program or WGA Foundation. And this means groups focusing on diversity -- the Black Writers or Age Awareness Committees for instance -- must also make more of an effort to involve members from the old boys club into their programs.
• What is your opinion of the current WGA Basic Agreement – strengths, weaknesses, areas for improvement, etc.? (Omit new media provisions; these are addressed in the next section.)
Our MBA is the collective success (and occasional failure) of 75 years of Guild leadership. The fact that our union exists at all and that we have the protections we do is thanks to the sacrifices codified in this document.
Is there room for improvement? As a living, breathing Guild -- of course.
As mentioned previously, one major focus of negotiations will be reaching parity in minimums between network and basic cable writers. The original justification for the sharp wage disparity -- lower revenues off network -- is simply no longer true.
Another lingering area of concern is reacquisition -- the right to buy back material bought and developed by a studio but which as never produced. The limited window and expense in the film track is prohibitive and unfair. We should move film rights closer to TV rights, where after five years a project can be developed by either the studio or original writer.
And the last major focus is one of jurisdiction (which I will discuss more momentarily). I believe our conflict with IATSE over animation writers is a festering wound and I will work hard to see the rift bridged. Animation writers must receive the WGA protections they deserve. We must also turn our attention to capturing two burgeoning fields: performance capture and video games.
• Should WGA make it a priority to obtain a larger residual in physical home video (DVD / Blu-ray)? Why or why not?
Since the home video rate was set at an abusively low 0.3 percent in the 1980s, screenwriters have sacrificed hundreds of millions of dollars in lost residuals. Is this fair? Hardly. But the DVD/home video formula is yesterday’s fight.
All studies show DVD/Blu-ray becoming a relic and home entertainment shifting to electronic distribution. This is where we must stand and fight for fair payment. Fortunately, our residual rate in electronic rentals, the fastest growing segment of online distribution, is a healthy 1.2 percent. But since technology will continue to shift and since we do not yet know where it will land, the WGA must remain vigilant in guaranteeing this formula becomes our consistent starting point in negotiations. We need to be ten times smarter in future contracts and never let the AMPTP shortchange us again like they did on VHS and DVD.
• Theatrical and television residuals are complex. Do you think any kind of large-scale changes to the residuals formulas/structure are necessary or desirable? (Please omit (or just briefly summarize) new media residuals, because this is addressed in the next section.)
Every American wants a “flat tax.” But we also want a mortgage deduction, a charity deduction and a progressive tax rate. In other words the residual rates in the MBA are complex because they were built to satisfy many parties. Yes, simplification would be nice. But with threats and enormous opportunities on the horizon, simplicity should not be our primary focus.
This is not to say that there are no other models to consider. As entrepreneurialism in Hollywood becomes increasingly important to a lasting career, I believe a higher-risk, low-upfront/higher-backend approach can become an important financial strategy for writers. The Guild should support opportunities like this but it does not belong in the MBA. The Guild is in the business of providing minimums in our contracts. This means we need to set the floor on a residual rate, not negotiate ways to make income more volatile. Let us improve the residual system we have. It needs no reinvention.
• What is your opinion about other WGA contracts that you’ve worked or are particularly familiar with – strengths, weaknesses, areas for improvement, etc.?
New Media
• Do you have any new media credits? If so, what kinds of projects were they, and what was the experience of working in new media like?
I have been closely tracking the development of new media and worked with writers entering the field, but I have not created a new media project myself.
• How significant a revenue source for studios and producers today are (a) original made for new media productions and (b) move-over new media (i.e., reuse of traditional product on new media platforms)? How significant do you think they’ll be in 3 years? Do you think that new media as a studio/producer revenue source will eclipse television or physical home video in the next 5 or 10 years?
Guild members earned around $3 million from new media in 2010. In other words, this is not a major source of employment for writers. At least, not yet.
How big is it going to get? Huge.
There is no question that in five to 10 years, new media as a separate category will cease to exist. All content will be delivered on multiple platforms -- theater, TV, computer and wireless device. The WGA scored a resolute victory in the 2007 strike by staking claim to this new territory. But as I detail below, there are more steps we need to take to expedite the rise of new media and help provide new opportunities to writers on all ends of the income spectrum.
• The studios say that they currently don't make much money from new media, whether original, derivative (i.e., based on an existing move or TV show), or move over. Do you believe them?
The studios are telling the truth. Sort of.
Compared to their traditional sources of revenue, new media is still a small slice of the pie. But is growing rapidly. The media conglomerate heads are making hay of this to their investors. When CBS 2nd quarter results came in, CEO Leslie Moonves was first to point out that the entertainment segment’s 10 percent growth was “driven by the new licensing agreement for the digital streaming of select library titles.” Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman noted that profit margins on digital distribution deals are in excess of 75 percent. Accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers predicts digital products will account for 29 percent of media spending by 2015.
Hiding profits, especially from new revenue sources, is nothing new in this business. It is imperative that the Guild remains vigilant, highlighting the CEO’s boasting of profits to their investors when they turn around and claim poverty to their employees.
Fortunately, especially in new media, we have the technology to track every web series aired and every dollar due to a writer. We must follow through on enforcing this.
• The salaries being offered to writers in original new media are generally low. Should writers accept these jobs even if they're low paying, or decline them – i.e., withhold their services in order to try to increase new media salaries?
New media salaries will rise when demand for original content grows and a company -- or writer! -- finds the secret to monetizing this sector. Currently, it is an excellent opportunity for beginning writers to practice their craft and gain entrance to the Guild. It is also one of the few mediums that established writers can distribute their own material through, completely unadulterated by studios and producers. So even though the market cannot yet compete with film and TV wages, it offers important opportunities.
All that said, at some point, a well-endowed company will stumble onto a writer with a great idea and a guarantee of rich profits. WGA writers are the best storytellers in the world and primed to crack open this market. When this happens, that writer should absolutely be adequately compensated, negotiating however she must.
Eventually new media companies will very likely challenge the profit potential of studios. And when this occurs and competition for writers increases accordingly, we all stand to benefit.
• Are the existing new media provisions (including but not limited to the residuals provisions) in the WGA Basic Agreement acceptable, or do they need modification? In what way?
Changes will be needed moving forward. There is currently a large window (17 or 24 days) in which traditionally produced material can be reused without any residuals due. This window should shrink. And for original new media content there are no minimums set in the MBA: a justified exclusion while the field is burgeoning, but something that must be addressed as revenues mature.
In the long term, more important than changing what the MBA says is increasing the number of companies beholden to a WGA contract. The Guild has a radical opportunity to encourage new production entities by offering favorable contract terms to companies like Netflix, Google, and DirecTV in exchange for improved writer ownership and control. We have not seen a market emerge out of whole cloth like this since the rise of TV two generations ago. If the Guild can create more competition between producers, we will wield greater leverage in negotiations with the AMPTP.
The WGA has never tried cultivating new business partners in a developing industry. But this reactive approach has hurt us before. Case in point are reality television and videogames. The WGA ignored these industries initially because they lacked what we traditionally consider “writing.” But this distinction has vanished, and far too often now it is WGA writers doing the work without any Guild protections because the two mediums -- powerful moneymakers both -- are reluctant to sign.
We cannot tell Google or Netflix to become content producers, of course. But there are enormous indications that these companies are moving in this direction. The series House of Cards on Netflix (produced by MRC) and A Day in the Life on Hulu are harbingers. It is essential that the WGA begin cultivating relationships with these companies by coordinating meetings between them and high-powered WGA members, proving the value of working in tandem with WGA talent.
Organizing, Collective Bargaining and Strikes
• What types of organizing efforts does or should WGA do with respect to (a) existing members, (b) new media, (c) other types of work that is already covered under the existing agreements and (d) new types of work (please specify) that are not covered under any of the existing contracts?
Two core values drive my beliefs about organizing: 1) writers come in many shapes and sizes. An animation writer and reality show editor both use the title just as fairly as a showrunner or screenwriter. And 2) with limited resources, our union’s priority needs to be protecting the members we have. With both values in mind, I support the ongoing effort to expand the reach of our Guild, to protect as many hardworking writers as we can -- but always focusing foremost on the needs of current membership.
With that said, it is not true that we must decide between organizing and enforcement. We can do both at the same time. As long as the membership backs the efforts we engage in (unlike the failed reality organizing campaign in 2007, which languished because of lacking member support).
I believe animation should be WGA covered. I believe performance capture should be covered. I believe video games must be broadly included in the WGA contract. (The current new media section of the MBA specifically exempts video games from our jurisdiction.) And I believe all basic cable -- including and specifically Comcast -- should be covered by WGA protections.
How we approach organizing must be more strategic than it has been in the past. We should be wary of massive sector-wide campaigns -- such as we pursued in reality TV. We have had a much better record organizing shop-by-shop. We must make sure that we have all the targeted writers on board, and are not imposing a WGA contract on reluctant employees. We must assure that we have the other Guilds behind us -- especially on-screen talent -- since they very often are the ones able to shut down a shoot. And where deep conflicts exist with other Guilds -- such as with IATSE over animation -- we must work to find commonality with them first, and not approach organizing with hostility.
These are all fundamental components of an organizing campaign, well understood by our union staff, but ones our elected leadership often forgets. Nothing breeds success in organizing like success. And nothing stops an organizing campaign like a major failure. Our current and future members rely on broad Guild jurisdiction for their basic working rights. We must not abandon them.
• What can WGA do to increase its leverage at the bargaining table?
As discussed more eloquently in previous answers, there are four ways the Guild creates leverage:
1) Inter-guild Solidarity. As long as the AMPTP can pick off the most pliable Guild and impose that bargaining “pattern” on the others, we remain weak. With greater solidarity we can set the terms of the debate.
2) Better Enforcement. This will prevent us wasting negotiation strength on reclaiming rights we already have; it will strengthen the resolve of members going into negotiations; and it will elicit the respect of the AMPTP we deserve.
3) New Producers. The broader our jurisdiction -- specifically into fields that the AMPTP does not reach, such as new media and videogames -- the less dependent we remain on the studios.
4) The Strike. This is a fundamental union right -- a tool we must always possess, but which should be used rarely.
• The threat of a strike may be a union's ultimate leverage, yet a strike is costly (at least in the short term) for members as well as management. That makes a strike a painful tool for a union to use. But, if a union never strikes, that may blunt the effectiveness of the strike threat. How should WGA balance these two competing factors? Do you think the Guild has been achieving the right balance in the last few years? Why or why not?
We were right to strike in 2007 and right not to strike in 2011. New media was an issue worth battling over. A similar issue did not exist in this last contract, and we made important gains in pension and health even without the strike threat. Whatever we think of how the 2007 strike was led, it was important that we did it.
A strike, first and foremost, must always be a last resort. We should never strike unless we have spent years gaining the broadest internal support, strengthening ties with our sister guilds and deploying every other form of leverage against the AMPTP before finally walking out.
If these prerequisites are met and I recognize an issue essential to our careers in the balance, I would strike without fail and with every ounce of strength.
• Should WGA seek a strike authorization vote from members as a standard procedure at the beginning of (or at another point during) each TV/theatrical contract negotiation? Why or why not?
The decision to strike belongs to the members, not to the Board. By routinely securing a strike authorization -- if such a thing were even possible -- the membership would be effectively removed from this equation. It will not make the WGA more effective at the negotiating table. The WGA membership is well-educated and independent. If they are not sold on the idea of striking, even if initially led to it, the strike will not hold. Thus any real power leveled against the studios by the strike must come with a full education and the unequivocal support of membership.
• Was the 2007-2008 strike a success? Why or why not? In what ways was it a success or not a success?
The strike was successful, tragic and beautiful.
We made many mistakes going in. We should have organized a better public outreach system instead of relying on the wonderful but ad hoc Media Room (of which I was a part). We should have anticipated DGA resistance and sought their backing before the strike rather than mid-stream (as was heroically led by members such as Billy Ray). And we should have more effectively communicated with our own members over important issues such as how the strike would affect the continuation of our health care.
But for many members, myself included, the strike was a shining moment of empowerment and camaraderie. For laborers so often isolated from each other, this was a first experience of walking together -- members from every medium, genre and income level side by side.
Will we ever regain the earnings we lost in this period? Probably not. And for the many who lost budding careers all together, this experience was heart-breaking.
But it was necessary to take hold in new media.
I hope we never strike again. But if the need is there, I will fight to my last breath to assure we are prepared and to win all we can.
• Did the Guild agree to inappropriate or unnecessary concessions in the 2011 negotiations? What were they?
(See next question.)
• Were the 2011 negotiations handled well? Why or why not? In what ways were they handled well or not handled well? How can this be improved, if improvement is needed?
I have great disagreements about our preparation leading up to the 2011 contract. We made inferior efforts to educate the membership; our inter-guild outreach was unsuccessful (largely the fault of the other Guilds); and we were, in no uncertain terms, unprepared to strike.
But with many conditions against us, the actual results of negotiations were strong. As a dollar amount, we gave up much less than any other guild. There were no major rollbacks during a period of grave economic turmoil. And in fact, we fortified our pension and health system so that it has become one of the most capable and stable in the nation -- this alone was a gargantuan victory.
I take umbrage to Nikki Finke’s chiding that we simply rolled over. But I absolutely agree, moving forward, we must never enter a negotiation period so unprepared again.
• Every negotiation involves compromise, since both sides have to agree to a deal. However, did the Guild agree to any inappropriate or unnecessary compromises in the 2010 TV/theatrical negotiations? If so, what were they, and why do you believe the compromises were inappropriate or unnecessary?
Two points. The major concession that the other guilds made, and which was imposed upon us as part of the AMPTP’s strategy of pattern bargaining, was the loss of first-class airfare. For the DGA and SAG -- with more members and/or requirements to fly -- this was a very expensive provision for studios, and its loss effectively robbed directors and actors of millions of dollars. But this provision is much less utilized by writers. Writers simply do not have contractual requirements to fly as much. So yes, I like every member will miss my warm peanuts and free champagne. But we should claim some satisfaction in knowing that the AMPTP did not win much from us in this effort.
Second, basic cable parity was unaddressed in this contract. As mentioned above, there was no opportunity to win it based on outside conditions and our lack of preparation. That said, this is an egregious oversight. Basic cable is a mammoth money earner, it employs many hundreds of writers and they have every right to the same income opportunities as their fellow writers at networks. In the next negotiation this must be addressed.
• Should the WGA strike in the next round of negotiations if the studios are not willing to make significant improvements in various areas or make significant rollbacks? Why or why not? Which areas or rollbacks, if any, are important enough to trigger a strike under those circumstances?
We are right to strike only when the issues at hand affect the vast majority of members. Draconian rollbacks are a strike-worthy issue. But from where we stand now, though we have much work to do, I see no other equal threat or binding opportunity on the horizon.
Also -- telling your employers years ahead of time that you are planning to strike is probably not the best negotiating strategy.
Relations with/between Members, Producers, Unions and Agents
• How well is the current elected leadership and top staff representing the members and handling the Guild’s affairs? Please explain, and indicate what sorts of improvements or changes are needed, if any.
I see plain and effective opportunities for improvement throughout the Guild, ideas that I have discussed at length in this document. So let me take one moment to add an important “thank you.” I direct this at the Guild staff.
Like many unions, the Guild staff is beholden to two masters -- executive and Board. The executive director gives direct orders, but he in turn must satisfy the mandates of elected leadership. Beyond this inherent divide, there are never enough resources, the mission statements often shift and us members are a loud and opinionated bunch. Yet the staff works tirelessly and effectively. I thank them for this. And I believe it is the Board’s duty to make their goals clear and keep the staff’s resources flowing.
• Have you had any experiences where you needed to call on the WGA for help? Please describe. Feel free to omit company or project names if desired, but if possible please give at least the approximate year or time period and some indication of the type of project.
I have heard many horror stories from Guild members: writers who have called in with crises that the Guild staff has been helpless in addressing. I understand the resentment that lingers from these experiences.
Years ago, there was a much larger disconnect between the staff and members’ needs. There were staffers -- long since fired -- who underperformed. I believe today’s Guild is incredibly responsive. I want to see this trend continue. And it is essential that tomorrow’s WGA not only be capable of handling members’ concerns, but become proactive in ferreting those needs out and contacting the member before the problem even becomes evident.
• In what areas does the WGA currently do a good job in helping members and addressing their concerns? In what areas does the WGA need to improve, and how should it do so?
Coupons! I am completely serious.
Did you know that the WGA already has a members discount program for select companies around Los Angeles? Any active WGA member today can get a 15 percent discount on his or her AT&T wireless bill. Or IMDBPro account. Or Apple Store at the Grove. This is another nugget buried in the WGA benefits that should be expanded and advertised to members.
I have always believed that the WGA at its best acts like a club, encouraging member participation, providing benefits and opportunities to make our working lives better. But this vision only works if members remain engaged. My goal on the Board is to assure the WGA becomes destination worthy of involvement.
• Various matters and decisions are handled jointly by the WGA West and WGA East. Do either of the two unions have too much or too little influence in joint matters and decisions, or is the balance about right? Please explain.
The two branches need to merge.
• What is the state of relations between the WGA West and WGA East? Is improvement necessary and, if so, how can it be achieved?
The two branches need to merge.
• In what ways, if at all, do the concerns of WGA West members and WGA East members differ?
The two branches… need to merge.
• Should the WGA West and WGA East merge? Why or why not?
Have I made my point? The old arguments are tired. And as a new generation of writers who never worked in the period of conflict rise, the cultural resistance to a merger will fall. Yes, we have our minor differences. There are hurdles like combining staffs and budgets. But like an old couple that has lived together for years and still remains unmarried -- it is time to offer the ring.
• A small number of WGA members are fairly wealthy. Does this make WGA politics more contentious or create other difficulties?
There is one unchanging fact in Hollywood: you are only as successful as your last script. The top writer today might be on the breadline tomorrow, and every writer who stays a few years in this business knows that. The utter beauty of the WGA is that it protects every writer. When a writer is on top, our Guild can empower her to race ahead, and when that same writer stumbles, our Guild assures she can get right back on her feet.
Ignore the occasional catcall between successful and struggling member -- a bit of jealousy or ego is only human. At our heart we remain united because we understand our path is the same.
• Does the Guild provide any real benefit to the small segment of writers who make a few million dollars per year or more? Why should they care about the Guild? Do they?
Even beyond helping successful writers in their downswings, even beyond providing health care and residuals, there are protections and opportunities that only the Guild can offer. A half-century ago we fought for and won credit arbitration: a right that once belonged to studio heads to recklessly dole out to their cousins. The Guild contract assures reacquisition rights and creative rights -- protections that would be hard won by even the best lawyers and agents these days. Our Guild is strong expressly because new and established members both benefit. This must never change.
• What is the state of relations between TV showrunners and the Guild? What is the state of relations between TV showrunners and other TV writers? TV showrunners hire, fire and manage other TV writers. Does this create tensions within the Guild?
We managed as well as we did in the 2007 strike because showrunners were willing to stop production to support their fellow members. Every guild has members at different ends of the financial spectrum and in different seats of power. The WGA remains more internally united than any other Guild and we must remain this way.
• How can WGA be more responsive to studios and production companies where appropriate, or is no change needed or appropriate here? Why?
Believe it or not, the Golden Rule applies. There is no question that the vast majority of working writers have seen studios undercut their rights and imperil working conditions.
But there are some writers who turn in scripts late or not at all. This does not excuse the overwhelming record of studio misbehavior. But it is that much easier for all writers to claim the protections of the MBA if we all also abide by its deadlines and rules.
• Should WGA take a confrontational approach to studios and producers or a collaborative one, or some in-between approach? Why?
I have spent a lot of time working in DC politics. Far too often in that field, we see the world in binary terms: peace or war. Writers are too smart to think this way.
Should we collaborate with producers on the complex piece of business and art we are making? Of course. If a producer double-crosses a writer and abuses his effort, should we forcibly confront him? Yes, as well.
In this election, let us not get bogged down in the lie that Guild leaders are only capable of one mode or the other.
• How can the Guild improve the professional status of writers, particularly including but not limited to screenwriters?
(Please see my suggestions for improving the CPSW program.)
• In theatrical films, should the Guild allow or perhaps require end credits such as “Additional Writing By” for participating writers who did not receive main title credit? Why or why not? If so, should such writers receive residuals? Why or why not?
I am a long-time supporter of the “Additional Writing By” credit. While most credit arbitrations are excellent, it is by definition a subjective process and there is no better balm than to make mention of every writer who substantively contributed.
In terms of residuals for the “Additional Writing” category, this seems unlikely. We need to trust the arbitration process enough to let the residuals go to the fully credited members.
• In what ways, if any, does the Guild need to improve its relationship with agents or help writers in their relationships with agents?
(Please see my suggestions for including members’ representatives in the CPSW program and enforcement regime.)
• Does the Guild need to improve relations with the DGA? If so, how can it do so?
Our poor relationship with the DGA is a lingering and dangerous threat to our negotiating ability. Frayed relationships with each of the guilds -- DGA, IATSE, SAG and AFTRA -- regularly thwart all good intentions. We must address this on both a leadership and grassroots level. It will require years of effort and a cultural shift. But it must be done. There are three major programs I would push to kick start the process.
Engage in President-to-President Collaboration. Relations between the WGA and DGA, in particular, remain strained. Efforts at strategic dialogue even on the leadership level have been rebuffed. The WGA should continue seeking discussions with our sister guilds’ elected leadership and staffs, and turn more forcefully to the actors if the DGA balks.
The Inter-Guild Salon. Guild relations are weak on the member level as well. The division cannot be healed overnight. Better relations require a cultural shift. Just like America’s relationship with China grew through Ping Pong Diplomacy, the WGA and its sister guilds should organize regular cultural and educational events, allowing members to mingle and advance their industry knowledge together.
The WGA Director/Producer Training Program. Ultimately, the most effective way to improve ties between guilds is to multiply the number of shared members. The WGA should create a director/producer training program -- akin to its TV showrunner training program -- that will offer 30 applicants a year a master class in directing and access to writer/director mentors. A preliminary version of this program already exists, led by Board member Billy Ray. It should be expanded, made permanent, and funded by the AMPTP through contract demands, as is the showrunner program.
• In what ways, if any, does WGA need to improve its relationship with any of the other entertainment unions and guilds in addition to the DGA?
(Please see my suggestions for improving our inter-guild relationships.)
Voting
• WGA (and other entertainment union) participation in voting (elections, strike authorization vote, contract approval) is usually quite low. How can it be increased?
Member participation in the WGA stands at a shockingly low 15 percent. Even city council elections see better turnout rates. My entire candidacy is based on the notion of increasing member involvement. If the Guild is not a supportive and beneficial association to be part of, then it has failed its members.
• Should writers who own production entities be allowed to vote on WGA contracts, strike authorization votes or in elections, or serve on the WGA boards?
It is completely wrong to assume that we are in conflict with producers. Yes, we negotiate with the AMPTP and must enforce our demands when they violate our rights, but we are made stronger through productive interaction.
One of the WGA’s most effective tools to increase its leverage is to help more writers become producers (and/or directors and actors). Not only does entrepreneurialism benefit the writer in her immediate career, but by becoming a joint member of other Guilds and by forming closer relationships with the studios we become a more powerful force in any negotiation.
Other
• What major issues not already covered above, if any, face the Guild today? How should these issues be addressed or resolved?
(Please visit my website www.aribrubinforwga.comfor a full discussion of these issues and the opportunity to speak directly. I want to hear your concerns and ideas.)
• Is there anything else you'd like voters to know?
The Writers to Work Plan
The WGA can take one of two forms. Either a bureaucracy devoted to basic functions -- collecting dues and paying residuals -- an afterthought in our working lives. Or it can become a dynamic network, a club able to improve a writer’s career, a league of creative professionals enriched by the collaboration of each of its members. I envision a Writers Guild as vibrant and useful as it once seemed from the outside, years ago, when we dreamt of joining its elite ranks. This transformation will demand our will and support. Under recent years of leadership, we have started down this loftier path. In this election we must make the choice to continue.
I propose a Writers to Work Plan -- a set of programs and goals, grouped into four broad categories, which will help the Guild empower its members and fortify our working lives. As a Board member, I will devote myself to seeing this plan realized. Through the effort, we will build a Guild that is truly indispensable to its members, one that actively enables each of us to reach our highest potential as a writing professional.
Hollywood Inter-Guild Solidarity
As long as the Hollywood guilds -- WGA, DGA, SAG and AFTRA -- remain divided, the studios will continue to undercut us in contract negotiations.
1. Engage in President-to-President Collaboration
§ Relations between the WGA and DGA, in particular, remain strained. Efforts at strategic dialogue even on the leadership level have been rebuffed. The WGA should continue seeking discussions with our sister guilds’ elected leadership and staffs, and turn more forcefully to the actors if the DGA balks.
2. The Inter-Guild Salon
§ Guild relations are weak on the member level as well. The division cannot be healed overnight. Better relations require a cultural shift. Just like America’s relationship with China grew through Ping Pong Diplomacy, the WGA and its sister guilds should organize regular cultural and educational events, allowing members to mingle and advance their industry knowledge together.
3. The WGA Director/Producer Training Program
§ Ultimately, the most effective way to improve ties between guilds is to multiply the number of shared members. The WGA should create a director/producer training program -- akin to its TV showrunner training program -- that will offer 30 applicants a year a master class in directing and access to writer/director mentors. A preliminary version of this program already exists. It should be expanded, made permanent, and funded by the AMPTP through contract demands, as is the showrunner program.
The WGA Community
The number of members who interact with the WGA -- in Guild events and elections -- hovers around 15 percent. Nearly 6,000 members have no involvement beyond paying dues and receiving health care. The WGA should actively improve member engagement by removing barriers and providing new incentives to participate.
1. Overhaul Communications
§ The Guild’s internal communications system is broken. We need to overhaul the Guild website to provide useful information and increase functionality. The Guild needs to make more efficient use of email by reducing unwanted communications, especially during election season, and by creating an opt-in procedure for writers who want event notifications. Finally, we should poll our members annually to determine what information they consider most valuable, and set communication efforts accordingly.
2. Improve Member-to-Guild Communications
§ For the Guild to meet its members’ needs, leadership must learn our concerns. We should achieve this through the most effective means: an annual scientific survey of membership, led by an outside polling firm, to assess general working conditions. The Board is already investigating this strategy. It should be implemented.
§ The Guild should also solicit members’ concerns through the existing strike captain system. We can encourage member interaction and create networking opportunities by grouping writers along lines of common genre, studio, or producer.
§ The Guild must tear down any barrier to members reporting contract violations. Since employer retribution remains a legitimate concern, the Guild should include an anonymous reporting option online.
3. Focus on Member Activities and Training
§ The first exposure new members have to the Guild must be a positive one. We should continue the planned overhaul of the new member meetings, so that they encourage ongoing participation and create opportunities for mentoring between new members and established writers.
§ The Guild should establish an annual “Career 101” program, offering seminars to improve well-being in a writer’s working life. Subjects should include: financial insights for the working writer, transitioning to other mediums, and how to manage the writer-agent-manager relationship.
4. Improve the WGA Discount Program
§ The Guild already has a limited program offering members discounts at select merchants, such as a 15 percent savings on AT&T cellular contracts. This is a minor but valuable program that should be expanded and better publicized.
Flex Our Political Muscle
Screenwriters contribute millions every year to political campaigns, individually or through industry events hosted by studio heads. If members instead channeled even some of that money through the WGA Political Action Committee, we could support legislation that protected writers ahead of studios, and earned us a more prominent role in the national spotlight.
1. Set a Goal of $200,000 Every Two Years in PAC Donations
§ Poor funding has hamstrung our PAC, limiting the candidates and issues we can support. The PAC needs to encourage member involvement by soliciting $5 and $10 donations, not just large donations by a few rich donors.
2. Host More Political Events
§ The PAC should host not only high-ticket fundraisers, but also affordable events with Congressional, state, and local leaders. The PAC should offer salons with policy and political experts, free of charge, to bolster members’ political knowledge. Politicians WANT to meet screenwriters. We all benefit from these exchanges.
Make the Guild a Powerful Advocate in Business
The most important function the Guild can provide is to improve working conditions.
1. Improve MBA Enforcement
§ The Guild loses far too much ground in contract negotiations defending rights we already have. By better enforcing against contract violations -- such as pre-writes and free rewrites -- we not only improve working conditions, but strengthen our negotiating stance. The Guild can improve monitoring by encouraging agents, managers, or lawyers to submit all contracts to the Guild and to report breaches. Placing the burden on representatives instead of members will help protect writers from recrimination.
§ To facilitate increased enforcement, the Guild should devote more resources to its contract department.
2. Continue the Planned Studio Report Card Initiative
§ A decade ago, an annual “report card” on each studio’s compliance with creative rights -- such as Film By credit and on-set visitations -- led to jealous competition amongst studio heads and a resulting improvement in behavior. A similar report card system has been proposed for new creative rights issues -- such as sweepstakes pitching, free rewrites, and late pay. By gathering this information through scientific polls and sharing it with writers, we can objectively measure a studio’s behavior and motivate compliance.
3. Expand the CPSW to Improve Dialogue With Our Business Partners
§ The CPSW initiative was established in 1988 to motivate better working conditions through dialogue with studio heads. Its record has been grim. The Guild can improve the program by expanding the meetings. They should be targeted not only at studio heads, but low-level creative executives -- to build a culture of writer collaboration -- as well as corporate executives above the studio-head level -- to help deflect unrelenting pressure from the top.
§ The Guild should include agents and managers in CPSW talks. Several large agencies have already requested to join this effort. Agents can offer hard evidence of MBA compliance in talks, and by further airing our concerns with agents, they will be better informed of their clients’ needs.
4. Create New Producers and Dilute the Strength of the AMPTP
§ Finally, as a long-term initiative, the Guild should encourage new production entities by offering favorable contract terms to companies like Netflix, Google, and DirecTV in exchange for improved writer ownership and control. With more competition between producers, the Guild will wield greater leverage in negotiations with the AMPTP.
#####
