Chris Hayes notes that a bunch of popular TV blogs are putting down their virtual pens in support of the strike. This blog will press on, however, to note that Ellen, which should be off the air already, is continuing to operate because and keep writing her own material, even if her staff writers won't work. I bet my blog doesn't have a huge overlapping audience with Ellen but in case you are an Ellen fan, I'd urge you to tune out and register your disappointment with her decision with a letter or whatever.
« Ron Paul and the Jews | Main | A Man of Convictions »
TV Blogger Strike
13 Nov 2007 03:25 pm
Comments (31)
This blog will press on, however
SCAB!
does being pro-labor mean i need to feel outrage about scabs regardless of the nature of the labor dispute?
was i supposed to be outraged about baseball player scabs in 1994?
i mean, i understand why they're striking, and i agree that it would be "fair" to give them a better deal on residuals, but i have a hard time mustering much emotion about this issue, as the writers who actually get work do make pretty good money.
someone please explain to me why i should be pissed at ellen.
While Ellen is likely a member of the Writer's Guild, I believe in this instance she's acting as a producer. It's no different than the editors at a newspaper stepping in to work when their writers go on strike. If Ellen were writing jokes for anyone else, she'd be a scab. I think she's ethically in the clear in this case, however.
Mike
Is Ellen a union member herself? Because I can see the argument for why union members shouldn't cross a picket line (even if I'm personally unpersuaded), but I can't for the life of me understand why non-members should be bound by the strike.
You know, I watched a TV sitcom at a bar the other night. I think it had one of the Sheens in it. And after watching that, I find it hard to sympathize with the writers' unions on this.
In fact, unions in general seem to have gone from representing the interests of a large swathe of the general population, like they did a century ago, to standing for some pretty narrow interests in the present day, often to the detriment of the general population.
Writers aren't being forced out of company houses and into tent colonies, nor are they working unfathomable hours and sustaining severed appendages for a pittance. Why should I give a damn about their labor dispute? I'd be interested in a labor dispute involving US retail workers, or teachers, or something that has broad implications, but I can't care about this any more than I care when a middle manager at some F500 company is declined a raise.
She's also a member of AFTRA and performs her duties as host of her show in that capacity. AFTRA apparently wants her to work (or at least supports her decision to work) for reasons a labor lawyer would be best positioned to explain. I don't think it's fair to call her a scab.
Jesus, the anti-union ramblings here in the commennts are depressing
oljb: When was the last time a teacher lost an appendage, since losing appendages appears to be your standard for sympathy.
Anyway, it is real simple--writers get paid when their stuff is on TV, but not when it is on the web or itunes--which do you think is going to be the growth industry?
Let me turn it back on YOU--should they get paid for downloads? Yes or no?
oljb, the studios are demanding a system where they can completely eliminate residual payments for writers as content moves online, and they're trying to make an example of the writers before contracts with the SAG and DGA run out next year.
If you think most writers would like to write fart jokes for Charlie Sheen, you're crazy. Studios want more of that stuff, less creativity, and pay less for it.
Who asked anyone to "care" about the WGA strike? This is a contract dispute.
oljb,
You certainly don't have to care about this labor dispute but it understandably gets a lot of attention because the industry is highly visible, not unlike the major sports leagues.
The entertainment guilds and the sports unions are unlike other unions because many members of these unions make many, many millions of dollars a year. But the WGA's rank-and-file membership has an incredibly tenuous grasp on its employment prospects. A vast majority of WGA members are unemployed at any given time. They make a pretty good living when they're working, but they don't work very often. When they aren't working, it's nice to at least get some residuals checks. Do they live in tenements? I doubt it, but they do often need non-writing jobs to get them through the months they aren't working.
The multimillionaire writer-producers don't need to worry about residuals. They're striking not so much for their own compensation but instead for the minimum pay the rank-and-file will get. There's no reason for it to be interesting to anybody outside the media companies, I'll grant you that, but it isn't all about millionaires.
Sorry Andrew, I was being flip about the finger-cutting-off thing.
Having been pro-union most of my life, my feelings have started to turn because I cannot stand the UMWA. They are sycophants to the coal companies, and I care more about the negative results of coal mining activities than I care about the wages being paid to surface "miners". And since, as a result of my disdain for the UMWA, I no longer have knee jerk support for every union activity I hear about, I start to question why I should give a damn about any given strike.
I can't blame the writers for wanting to get a bigger cut of new revenues, but frankly I don't see why their interests are all that compelling. And I can't really blame other writers for wanting to get into this industry as scabs when creative fields like writing are notoriously cliquish and rely as much on political connections as talent.
oljb,
To turn against unions in general because you don't like the UMWA would be like turning against all corporations because of Enron. Unionization is important because it's never a good thing for one party (employers) to have unfettered power over another (employees). Of course there may be specific unions and union policies one might disagree with. But the general principle that unions play a useful role in our system is still valid.
So lemme get this straight: MY has previously mentioned how he loves the non-union Whole Foods, and thus won't deign to spend his dollars at Safeway or Giant or Shopper's, all of which are union shops. But because a "union" to which his immediate relatives belong is on "strike", **now** we're supposed to believe Yglesias when he starts singing "Solidarity Forever"?!?!?
dbt, steve, karl, etc. You all make valid points that I haven't necessarily been considering. Thanks for the input.
I just have one more oljb, don't mean to pile on.
"Unions in general seem to have gone from representing the interests of a large swathe of the general population, like they did a century ago, to standing for some pretty narrow interests in the present day, often to the detriment of the general population."
I think this is likely because unions have gone from representing a large swathe or the population to representing a pretty narrow segment today."
Unions focusing on larger-scale political issues is something I'd love to see, but it is hard to expect when membership and wages are at best stagnant, but usually on the decline.
While Ellen is likely a member of the Writer's Guild, I believe in this instance she's acting as a producer. It's no different than the editors at a newspaper stepping in to work when their writers go on strike. If Ellen were writing jokes for anyone else, she'd be a scab. I think she's ethically in the clear in this case, however.
I never really understood this. People already at the company that is being struck can do the strikers' work, but the company can't hire someone from outside the company to do it? Or is there something I'm missing?
MY has previously mentioned how he loves the non-union Whole Foods, and thus won't deign to spend his dollars at Safeway or Giant or Shopper's, all of which are union shops
For the record, I go to Safeway much, much, much more often than I go to Whole Foods.
Here is the update with Ellen's union AFTRA defending her in a letter to WGA:
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/advisory-i-have-ellens-response/
Let's go slow, Al.
Scabs replace union workers during strikes. This is good for management and bad for union workers.
Thus, for those of us who think unions are good for workers, scabs are bad.
Whole Foods may not have a union, but at least they offer pretty good, competitive packages for their workers, unlike, say, WalMart. Isn't Costco the same way?
Scabs replace union workers during strikes
Well, isn't that what Ellen is doing - replacing the striking writers who normally work on her show? Somebody's doing the work that the writers normally do for Ellen's show - I was led to believe that that somebody is Ellen herself.
Ellen's a hyphenate, a performer-producer-[maybe] writer. My understanding is that the studios have taken the position that hyphenates -- generally, the writer-producers, or show runners (and the highest paid writers in the TV business) -- have to report for work and continue to perform their non-writing duties. The WGA, I believe, has said they don't want the hyphenates doing this because they think they'll end up doing some writing. I believe most of the hyphenates are honoring the WGA's request that they not work. But most of the show runners are only WGA members; Ellen, as an AFTRA/SAG member has to think about her other union's position, which might well be in favor of her going to work. I haven't looked into it.
I assume that Ellen says she's doing only non-writing work. From my understanding of the situation, the implication that the non-striking folks on her set can fill in for the striking writers is likely incorrect. I don't think anyone knows whether she is actually doing any writing, but the WGAE, true to their overall position with respect to hyphenates, says they don't believe it.
So again, I don't think it's fair to call her a strikebreaker or a scab or whatever.
I don't think anyone knows whether she is actually doing any writing
Is this so difficult to figure out? If she is reading anything off of a cue card, or a list of questions to ask, or the like, then somebody must have written it, right?
I've never seen the show - what exactly do the writers on the Ellen show write? If somebody else is writing what the writers normally write, then that somebody (Ellen, or whoever) is breaking the strike, as I see it.
BTW - it interests me to know which types of writers have unions. Writers for TV show have unions. Writers for newpapers have unions. Writers for magazines (and magazine blogs)... don't have unions? How odd. Or do they?
My understanding of the situation is that it has nothing to do with what Ellen is actually doing on the show. Her contract with the studio is not covered by the WGA; rather, it is covered by AFTRA. The AFTRA contract has a no-strike clause. Therefore, if she strikes, she can be held liable for breach of contract. In other words, even if she is generally a member of WGA, she has no right to strike by not fulfilling her contractual duties for the show.
Letterman did the same thing during a writers' strike in the 80s. The quality of the jokes really suffered (keeping in mind that this was back when Letterman was actually funny). No one seemed to hold this against him that I know of.
From the blog MY linked to earlier:
I have exclusively not one but two letters from AFTRA (see below) -- one thanking Ellen DeGeneres for her support of the writers and the other contradicting today's WGA East statement attacking the comedienne. (See my previous, WGAE States Ellen "Not Welcome In NY".) But first, her rep's statement: "Ellen has done nothing to violate the Writers Guild of America agreement. Ellen is competing with other first-run syndicated shows that are delivering original programming like Dr. Phil, Regis and Kelly, and Oprah during the competitive November sweeps period. Telepictures and Warner Bros have a contractual obligation to the affiliates to continue production and deliver original programming. They asked Ellen to come back to work to fulfill her contractual obligation as host and producer.
"As a syndicated show, the individual stations control when the show airs. If Telepictures does not deliver original episodes of The Ellen DeGeneres Show, the stations can move the show out of its time periods, or ultimately hold the company in breach of contract.
"Telepictures provides first run programming to stations they don't control. The network controls their own schedule and programming with the late night shows as Leno, Conan, Kimmel etc. (We can't speak to the specific deals at each network or to the specifics of other shows' decisions to stop production)."
I should point out that AFTRA is often accused of having undercut Guild contracts for years and poaching jobs that are traditional SAG jurisdiction. But here is the first letter from AFTRA dated November 8th (and written before today's WGAE statement) expressing "appreciation to you for your invidual act of solidarity shown to the striking writers in their efforts to negotiate a fair contract with the industry producers":
I can understand people wanting Ellen to have solidarity with the writers.
But the choice is a tough one.
Do you support the generally well-paid writers by stopping filming your show?
Or do you support the people that work on your show - all the lesser-paid, many non-union folks who would lose their jobs and their paychcks if you stopped working?
Are the writers getting a little more money somehow more important than say the livilihood of the caterer, or the office assistants?
It's not so simple a choice. Frankly, the writers seem like they are "taking the ball and going home" and a lot of people with less are suffering.
Rob Mac: I have no particular position on Ellen, but in 1988 Letterman (and Carson) originally went off the air, as the late night shows are again doing now, and only went back on after a couple months had gone by and they had received the WGA's tacit approval. (In fact, I believe Carson eventually worked out a separate deal with his own writers.)
I'd feel a lot more empathy for the writers if their damn strike hadn't cut short season 2 of Heroes.
So now, I saw fuck 'em.
Camille Paglia alerted me to this in her unique way:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2007/11/14/hillary/index.html
I came for the Hillary bash, but the Ellen bit, on page 3, was just.. dang!:
"On the pop front, Ellen DeGeneres' cringe-making on-air meltdown over a dog, leading to her overwrought cancellation of several days of her show, should get a Raspberry Award for worst performance by a lesbian icon. Following Rosie O'Donnell's professional collapse amid lunatic rants and operatic kvetching, this has been a terrible year for Hollywood lesbians' public image. It's as if when the butch mask drops, there's nothing inside but a boiling candy kettle of infantile rage and self-pity. And now Ellen, the professed liberal, is narcissistically flouting the Writers Guild strike. Great going, gals!"
Comments closed November 27, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Ellen is a scab!
Posted by Al | November 13, 2007 3:50 PM