Negotiating With the Writers Guild of America

The talks between the Writers Guild of America (WGA) and the Alliance of Motion Picture &

Television Producers (producers) started off tense in 2007, and then got tenser. In their first meeting,

the two sides got nothing done. As law and order producer said, “Everyone in the room is concerned

about this.”

The two sides were far apart on just about all the issues. However, the biggest issue was how to split

revenue from new media, such as when television shows move to DVDs or the Internet. The

producers said they wanted a profit-splitting system rather than the current residual system. Under

the residual system, writers continue to receive “residuals” or income from shows they write every

time they’re shown (such as when Seinfeld appears in reruns, years after the last original show was

shot). Writers Guild executives did their homework. They argued, for instance, that the projections

showed producers’ revenues from advertising and subscription fees had recently jumped by about

40% between 2002 and 2006.

The situation grew tenser. After the first few meetings, one producers’ representative said, “We can

see after the dogfight whose position will win out. The open question there, of course, is whether

each of us takes several lumps at the table, reaches and agreement, then licks their wounds later –

none the worse for wear – or whether we inflict more lasting damage through work stoppages that

benefit no one before we come to an agreement.” Even after meeting six times, it seemed that, “the

parties’ only apparent area of agreement is that o real bargaining has yet to occur.”

In october 2007, the Writers Guild asked its members for strike authorization, and the producers were

claiming that the guild was just trying to delay negotiation until the current contract expired (at the end

of October). As the president of the producers’ group said, “We have had six across-the-table

sessions and there way only silence and stonewalling from the WGA leadership…We have attempted

to engage on major issues, but no dialogue has been forthcoming from the WGA leadership…The

WGA leadership apparently has no intention to bargain in good faith.” As evidence, the producers

claimed that the WGA negotiating committee left one meeting after less than an hour at the

bargaining table.

Both sides knew timing in these negotiations was very important. During the fall and spring, television

series production is in full swing. So, a strike now by the writers would have bigger impact than

waiting until, say, the summer to strike. Perhaps not surprisingly, some movement was soon

discernible. In a separate set of negotiations, the Directors Guild of America reached an agreement

with the producers that addressed many of the issues that the writers were focusing on, such as how

to divide the new media income. Then, the WGA and producers finally reached agreement. The new

contract was “the direct result of renewed negotiations between the two sides, which culminated

Friday with a marathon session including top WGA officials and the heads of Walt Disney Co. and

News Corp.”

Questions:

1. The producers said the WGA was not bargaining in good faith. What did they mean by that,

and do you think the evidence is sufficient to support that claim?

Bargaining in good faith means that both parties honestly communicate and negotiate to make

a reasonable effort to arrive at a fair agreement. It would be very difficult to determine if the

WGA was not bargaining in good faith without knowing additional facts and details regarding

the negotiations and bargaining between both parties.

2. The WGA did eventually strike. What tactics could the producers have used to fight back once

the strike began? What tactics do you think the WGA used?

The producers could have threatened to hire writers to take the place of striking employees. While

this course of action would be very difficult given the creative nature of this business, often the threat

of hiring replacement workers helps the process move toward a labor settlement. The WGA in return

could claim the producers have committed an unfair labor practice. The WGA could also play to the

media to gain sympathy for their job action.

3. This was a conflict between professional and creative people (the WGA) and TV and movie

producers. Do you think the conflict was therefore different in any way than are the conflicts

between, say, the Autoworkers or Teamsters unions against auto and trucking companies?

Why?

The conflict and bargaining process described in this scenario is no different than the day-to-day negotiations between

any union and management. Very often, the issues are over wages, hours, and/or working conditions.

4. What role did negotiating skills seem to play in the WGA producers’ negotiations?

Timing played a role as well as a marathon bargaining session which tends to make each side more flexible and come to an agreement. Also the introduction of the heads of Walt Disney and News Corp played a role in moving both parties toward settlement.