Hollywood Writers Strike

@bobmnu (8160)
United States
November 8, 2007 11:33pm CST
I have a real problem with the Writers Strike. They get paid to write a script. They get royalities every time the story is replayed or re broadcast. One of the leaders pointer out that when the company makes money they should make money. My problem is that when a writer writes a script and the studio produces a TV series that never makes it to TV do the writers give back the money they were paid? They want a guarenteed income and a perceent of the profit with no risk if the script is a bust. I was a teacher and taught students who are very sucessful today. Shouldn't they be paying me a percent of the money they are making because I taught them? What about the coach who first worked with Brett Favre shouldn''t he be paid each time Favre collects a bonus? If the writers want a peice of the profit then they should get paid only alities or should only get a salary not both. Profit goes to the person or group that takes the risk.
3 people like this
6 responses
@MntlWard (880)
• United States
9 Nov 07
From what I've heard the strike is about their contracts including pay for theater screenings and TV airings and VHS rentals/sales, but not DVD's or internet downloads. Supposedly, the production companies are saying they don't know how to count how often something is downloaded, which is ridiculous if it's true. I don't know how much money a TV/screen writer makes. It's definitely more than I make, so it may seem a little greedy that they're asking for more. But if the contracts aren't rewritten to include internet royalties, and the internet becomes the main source for home viewings of movies and TV series (which is probably going to happen), then the writers won't make money equivalent to the popularity of what they wrote. The producers will pocket the money the writers should have gotten.
2 people like this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
12 Nov 07
If the show is a failure and the producers lose money shouldn't the writers and actors pay back the producer? If teh producer is taking the risk should he also enjoy the rewards?
1 person likes this
@MntlWard (880)
• United States
12 Nov 07
A failure of a TV show isn't always the writers' fault. Sometimes a show fails because a network puts it in a bad time slot or they show episodes out of order so viewers are confused. The writers aren't asking to get paid for an unsuccessful show as if it were successful. They just want their fair share of what the producers are making from internet viewing, and if people are watching on the internet instead of TV that doesn't mean the show is unsuccessful. If they're paying to watch it on iTunes, then they must enjoy it. The writers deserve their fair share of that market, and the producers are lying when they say they can't pay it.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
13 Nov 07
Then let the writers sell each show or script with that condition and take a lower price for the writint. Many actors will take a lower salary and higher residuals, but they don't get a high salary and high residuals.
1 person likes this
• United States
10 Nov 07
Believe or not, I am for the writers on this one. They need their pay.
2 people like this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
12 Nov 07
If the producers had to pay all their profits out to everyone then why produce a show? If they are not going to make money what is the incentive?
2 people like this
• United States
12 Nov 07
The writers are entitled to their fair share of the profits.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
13 Nov 07
Then they should produce their own stories and keep all the profits.
• United States
9 Nov 07
You are correct, in my opinion. It reminds me very much of a famous contract negotion that went on between the automakers and UAW, I think back in the 1950's. Management wanted to have the pay increase or bonus be in company stock. Management reasoned that making the workers part owners might get them to see things a little more their way. Union leaders strongly opposed this and it never happened. Just like the writers. They wanted the big money and none of the risk. This couldn't work except in a fairy tale.
2 people like this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
12 Nov 07
This is one of the reasons the Unions and liberals hadt Walmart is they encourage the employees to purchase stock in the company. Another good responce.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
13 Nov 07
I think what unions and liberals dislike about Walmart is the fact that most of what they sell is made in China and that they pay their workers very poor wages, to the extent that a large percentage of them are actually eligible for medicaid. That hardly leaves them much with which to purchase stock, now does it? Annie
1 person likes this
• United States
13 Nov 07
I have been a stock holder in Wal-Mart, several family members have been stock holders in Wal-Mart, and one close family member has been an employee at Wal-Mart. So, I know something about Wal-Mart. One does wonder how Sam Walton would feel about WMT today. Especially, this business of buying so much from China. I remember when Sam Walton had a "BUY AMERICA" program with the intent that rural Americans should have jobs so they could afford to shop at WMT forever. At one time, WMT would buy first from small American manufacturers! Seems strange today, but that is the way it use to be.
@jayperiod (870)
• United States
9 Nov 07
I would imagine if they are a good enough writer, they could get that negotiated into their contract. They don't have to take the job. They can always refuse it. The thing that gets me about this strike is that no one is talking about the other people who work on the shows, such as grips, lighting, etc., and what they are doing for a paycheck now. Also, are they thinking about the fact that some of their shows might get canceled due to this? Some won't have jobs to go back to after the strike.
2 people like this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
12 Nov 07
When I was a negotiator for a teachers contract we were told buy the Union that if the School told us they would have to cut jobs the so be it. The Union was only concerned with the survivors. As far as the other workers are concerned too bad. It is interesting that the Union still gets their dues.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
10 Nov 07
I must say in my opinion your analogies about teaching and football are are true examples of comparing apples and oranges. Without the writers there would be no shows, no movies, no DVDs, no downloads, nothing for the production companies or networks to take a risk over. Writers of comedy shows such as Leno and Letterman or of any weekly TV series have to continuously come up with fresh ideas and storylines or comic routines. I heard it takes only a few cents to make a DVD yet they're sold for up to $30 or $40 or more each. To say the writers aren't entitled to a piece of that is ridiculous! I'm on the writers' side all the way in this and apparently so are a majority of the actors and other performers. They don't earn a million per episode or 15 million a season. A great actor can't do much with bad writing but a good writer can make a mediocre actor look good. Annie
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
13 Nov 07
If something is written and nobody wants to buy it then there won't be any profits from DVD sales so there won't be any percentage for the writer to get. I'm not for one minute saying the producer shouldn't make money. Obviously they should, they are putting their money up to begin with and they're taking the risk. I'm not disagreeing with that. But, the fact still remains that unless the producer also has the talent and the desire to write their own material, without a writer there's nothing to produce, therefore no product and no profits. The producer is still going to get most of the money but the writer should get a share. Some shows and movies go on forever and ever, or so it seems. I don't know the dollar amount that they're asking for but it wouldn't seem unreasonable if a writer got a few cents for each DVD that sells for $40. That still leaves a pretty nice chunk of change for the producer, don't you think? Annie
1 person likes this
• United States
9 Nov 07
I agree with everything you are saying besides you being a teacher and you should get a little bit for teaching thoes kids, in my opinion,no you should not because a teacher should not teach a child because of the money but because they want to..and you should teach a kid because you want them to have more in life.. not teach them so u can take alittle back 20 years down the road.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
12 Nov 07
Then shouldn't everyone do their job because they want to and not for the money. Shouldn't writers write because they want and not for the money they may make down the future?
1 person likes this