Ask Your Congressman - Complications Ensue
Complications Ensue:
The Crafty TV and Screenwriting Blog




Baby Name Voyager graphs baby name frequency by decade.

Social Security Administration: Most popular names by year.

Name Trends: Uniquely popular names by year.

Reverse Dictionary Search: "What's that word that means....?"

Facebook Name Trees Match first names with last names.


Archives

April 2004

May 2004

June 2004

July 2004

August 2004

September 2004

October 2004

November 2004

December 2004

January 2005

February 2005

March 2005

April 2005

May 2005

June 2005

July 2005

August 2005

September 2005

October 2005

November 2005

December 2005

January 2006

February 2006

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

June 2006

July 2006

August 2006

September 2006

October 2006

November 2006

December 2006

January 2007

February 2007

March 2007

April 2007

May 2007

June 2007

July 2007

August 2007

September 2007

October 2007

November 2007

December 2007

January 2008

February 2008

March 2008

April 2008

May 2008

June 2008

July 2008

August 2008

September 2008

October 2008

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009

March 2009

April 2009

May 2009

June 2009

July 2009

August 2009

September 2009

October 2009

November 2009

December 2009

January 2010

February 2010

March 2010

April 2010

May 2010

June 2010

July 2010

August 2010

September 2010

October 2010

November 2010

December 2010

January 2011

February 2011

March 2011

April 2011

May 2011

June 2011

July 2011

August 2011

September 2011

October 2011

November 2011

December 2011

January 2012

February 2012

March 2012

April 2012

May 2012

June 2012

July 2012

August 2012

September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

December 2012

January 2013

February 2013

March 2013

April 2013

May 2013

June 2013

July 2013

August 2013

September 2013

October 2013

November 2013

December 2013

January 2014

February 2014

March 2014

April 2014

May 2014

June 2014

July 2014

August 2014

 

Monday, December 17, 2007

From today's NYTimes:
The alliance “represents all the companies both individually and on a multiemployer basis,” Mr. Counter said. In all, about 350 production companies are represented by the alliance, whose stance is controlled by representatives of the big corporations.

Even if forced to bargain separately — and representatives from both sides said they expected the unions’ position to be challenged — the companies would remain free to deal through the alliance and would be permitted to let other companies monitor their separate talks, allowing them to remain on common ground.
Ask your congresspeople how it is not illegal collusion for the 6 media companies running the AMPTP to coordinate their strike strategy against the WGA. If General Motors, Chrysler and Ford all sat down at the table together against the UAW, that would beyond a doubt be illegal collusion. Ask your congresspeople how this isn't. And tell them you'd like your tv shows back.

You can easily find and email your Congressman here.

You can easily find and email your Senator here.

Here's what I wrote
Currently the AMPTP is refusing to negotiate with the Writer's Guild of America.

Why exactly is the AMPTP allowed to negotiate with the WGA at all? Why is this not collusion?

The strike would be settled already if the individual studios and networks were actually competing with each other, and negotiated with the WGA separately, the way the auto companies negotiate separately with the UAW.

I think you should investigate the AMPTP for illegal collusion.

I want my tv shows back!
You don't need to go into more detail than that. They just want to know how many people are on which side of the question.

UPDATE: Ryan asks how the WGA can negotiate 350 different deals.

They don't have to. They would agree with Worldwide Pants on a deal that gives them what they're asking for, or most of it. And then other producers can sign onto the same language.

Any producer that breaks ranks with the AMPTP will insist on a "most favored nations" clause that says that if anyone else gets a better deal, that producer's deal is improved accordingly. So there will only be one set of terms.

Also, if the WGA winds up signing with even 20 production companies, then the AMPTP will probably begin really-negotiating instead of posturing, and the strike will soon be over.

Labels: ,

6 Comments:

I don't even want to begin to imagine the WGA having to negotiate a new contract with every single signatory. They have enough trouble enforcing the regular MBA. How successful would they be negotiating and enforcing 350 separate MBAs?

By Blogger Ryan, at 3:01 PM  

But you're asking why it's not illegal for those 350 companies to negotiate as a single unit.

If it is illegal, then the WGA would have to negotiate separate deals for everyone.

And, actually, according to the WGA's current reading of the law, if any or all of those 350 companies wanted to open up separate negotiations, the WGA would be required to do so.

By Blogger Ryan, at 3:20 PM  

Aren't there provisions for collective bargaining that allow the AMPTP to act on behalf of the studios legally? Doesn't it work the same in sports?

By Blogger Diane Kristine, at 5:41 PM  

Diane is correct. The bargaining relationship -ie. the AMPTP representing signatory companies in collective bargaining - is something agreed to in the MBA by the WGA. As such, it's kind of hard to consider it collusion.

By Blogger Ed McNamara, at 6:14 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Blogger Danon, at 4:07 AM  

The folks who make over 5 million a picture can stop this strike. Ask each one, George, Julia, Will, Tom, to have his or her production company sign a contract with the WGA. The corporates have never had a "Product" that was a hit that could think for itself. They could save our artistry from corporate take-over.

Muse Watson, SAG member

By Blogger Muse Watson, at 7:54 AM  

Post a Comment

Back to Complications Ensue main blog page.



This page is powered by Blogger.