Michael Buckner/Diversity
The solo TV writer could soon be a thing of the past.
The Writers Guild of America will meet with studios on Monday, and high on the agenda is setting a minimum staffing for writers’ rooms. That means the days when Mike White or Craig Mazin could write an entire season of prestige TV all by themselves may be coming to an end.
The guild argues that studios are squeezing more work out of fewer writers in less time and paying them less than they’re entitled to. And the union leadership believes it’s time to set basic standards for the size and length of a writer’s room.
sorry mike white
“We spoke to members who have a reputation for being the sole writers on a series,” said David Goodman, co-chair of the WGA’s bargaining committee. “You agree with this proposal. you understand. We make rules that we have to follow, that need to be explained because they’re complicated, but they have value for the whole membership. We absolutely can do that and it’s something we should do.”
David Goodman Sthanlee Mirador/Sipa USA
That’s just one of many suggestions the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers union has put forward as it prepares to negotiate a new three-year deal. The guild is also focused on raising minimum wage scales, improving residual formulas, and more esoteric issues such as raising the earnings cap for “Spension Protection,” which would guarantee inflated pay for high-earning writers.
The guild’s proposals would cost a total of about $600 million a year – or, union officials say, about 2% of the big studios’ operating profits. In a wide-ranging interview with Variety on Wednesday, guild leaders argued that studios could afford it and that current trends are making it increasingly difficult for writers to sustain a career.
“All of these stories all lead to this: We all have a compensation issue,” said Meredith Stiehm, the president of the WGA West. “It goes down and down.”
Guild leadership is particularly focused on requiring TV shows to hire a set number of writers for a minimum period of time. In traditional television, a crew of 15 or more writers worked an entire season, producing scripts that went into production week after week.
But in the streaming era, a showrunner might hire a handful of writers to quickly roll out the first few episodes or even an entire season — sometimes before the show gets the green light. These writers earn guild minimums rather than their typical fee, and they may not be there when the show goes into production.
“It’s unacceptable for companies to just say, ‘Well, we want you to do all the work with fewer people in less time, and that’s fine,'” said Ellen Stutzman, the Guild’s chief negotiator. “It’s a big problem for TV writers. The Guild has to say, ‘That’s how the business worked, that’s how long it takes, and that’s how writers have to be employed in this way.’”
Stiehm said the guild’s proposals are about “codifying the way we used to be paid.”
“They have these new ideas, like mini rooms, that try to work around that,” she said. “That’s why we have to set up all these new rules and norms.”
Goodman said that even the term “mini room” was derogatory, saying, “It’s a writer’s room. A writing room is a writing room. work is work.”
Ellen Stutzman Courtesy of the Writers Guild of America
“Companies are getting something very, very valuable … for a lot less than they should be paying,” he said. “And writers that exist in this field of work don’t earn their year, can’t support themselves, can’t afford to live in LA, and that’s just unsustainable.”
In the interview, the three leaders also addressed the struggle over streaming viewership data and expressed hope that the negotiations could be resolved without a strike.
The following questions and answers have been edited for length and clarity.
There are more TV shows than ever before. More writers are working than during the strike 15 years ago. Total compensation has increased. From these data points, you wouldn’t say, “These people are going to go on strike.” Can you explain why, given all the abundance and excess you see on your TV screen, writers feel pressured?
David Gutman: I don’t want to take it for granted when you say: “Why are the writers on strike?” That’s a decision that is far from being made. All the talk about strikes is really something that comes out every three years when the guild negotiates. And it never comes from anyone in the guild. I think it reflects how the guild is viewed by the rest of the industry. People are afraid that the guild might consider going on strike because they know the guild is ready to fight for its members. I don’t want to just ignore the fact that a strike is inevitable. We expect to negotiate in good faith with the studios and hopefully find a way to reach an agreement.
Ellen Stutzman: There was an increase in shows. That comes with the tremendous growth of the industry in terms of both revenue and profits. We’ve seen budgets for shows increase. But the companies simply pay the authors less. They’ve put a lot of downward pressure on inflated wages. A decade ago, only a third of television series writers worked at least one. Now it’s almost half. And a quarter of showrunners work at least because companies stretch them out over so many weeks to make shows that you wouldn’t think last that long, but do last as long as a full network order. These people make minimum. It’s just that the companies have taken a lot of value away from the authors. So we are in a situation where this is no longer tenable. It is unacceptable for writers to make a career out of this business.
They put out an annual report that includes total earnings and residual compensation. Over a decade, these numbers are increasing. The average is also increasing. In your report yesterday, you said that the average weekly pay for screenwriters has gone down. Is the average annual payout too?
Stutzmann: Authors only report their minimum wage to the guild. The annual report does not cover TV oversizing. When we do surveys or give out information about weekly pay, that’s total author pay, overstated. I can get more information from [talent] Agencies now and can see the bottleneck that happened in plus size. It has gotten to the point where the guild needs to address some of this at a minimum. If they want to pay all or the majority of people in minimums, those minimums must increase to better reflect the author’s value.
Good man: We had 7,000 authors answer questions on a survey. It told a story. Every writer across the board told us their income is the same or lower than it used to be.
Meredith Stiehm Getty Images for WGAW
Can you define a mini space? Can you be specific about the abuses you are trying to fix?
Good man: They do the most important work in the life of a series. You gather a group of authors in a room for a limited time. And these writers create a series. You can create an entire season. All writers in this room get a minimum. So even if this show continues to be picked up, the writers who took part in it – all they had was this bare minimum for that period. This is probably the most egregious part of the mini space problem. At the most important time in the life of making a series, the writers are not compensated for the work they create. Generally, the way it used to work was that you had an author write a pilot. Once it becomes a series, everyone involved is overpaid, given a chance to help create it, and paid more commensurate with their experience. Even in a mini-room, writers with a lot of experience get paid the same as writers with no experience. And because the number of authors is smaller, certain authors may be excluded from this process. So there are a million reasons why you have to set guard rails around it.
Isn’t that negotiated by your agent?
Good man: This is the difficulty we encounter. Yes, agents need to protect over-revenues. And since [WGA’s] agency campaign, they now have a vested interest in fixing that. And you want. They are in touch with the guild on this issue. But the guild can also put some guard rails around it so that companies reward the authors involved more fairly.
Is it an all-in-one solution to just switch the entire template from pay-per-episode to pay-per-week?
Stutzmann: It’s not enough to just do it. Because that doesn’t matter how many writers have to be around, how many writers have to work to earn their year and be there for the production of the show.
We’ve talked a lot about prepayments. We haven’t heard that much about residuals. When we talk about moving to streaming, how important is it to get a streaming residual that accounts for a show’s success or some kind of viewership data in that contract? Is that an essential – is that an existential question for the future?
Good man: I think the most important thing is to make sure we get a fair residual. There are many problems with transparency. We already have some of this information. We may not have talked about it as much leading up to these negotiations because we realize we need to improve the residual formula. The other things we adopt need more explanation. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t important. It is very important.
Stiehm: It comes under the umbrella of compensation, which is our big overall theme.
It doesn’t sound like it’s a make-or-break if there isn’t a formula that says a show with 10 million viewers will be paid more than a show with 10 viewers then we’ll go.
Good man: First of all, I will not answer any question related to this. So don’t ask such a question, because I won’t answer it. The fact is that getting a good residual is very important to us. And of course it’s also really important if we can tie it to success. People should be rewarded for the value they create.
Is there a creative way to do this where streaming services don’t reveal data they don’t want to reveal?
Stutzman: No, and I think we need to break this myth that data can never be given up. It’s just a great negotiating trick for companies to act in such a way that you can never give up. They all want advertisers to support their services, so we have to move away from the idea that nobody gets access to this data. Authors and other talent in this industry have a long history of contributing to the success of programs about residuals. So I don’t think this construct should just go away.
They don’t want to talk about whether there’s a strike. But if there’s a strike, what’s the slogan that goes on the picket sign? “We want more compensation”?
Good man: Long before there is a strike, members need to understand our agenda. And they do, and it’s about compensation. It’s about compensation. They understand because it’s their experience. Our agenda stems entirely from their experience.
But you have to explain this to the general public, who will be fine without TV shows.
Stiehm: That’s how I think about it when I explain it to my father. Budgets have increased. Profits have increased. Writers’ salaries have gone down. This is a huge problem. It needs to be fixed. That’s super clear. That’s how I explain it to my 90-year-old father.
Good man: Also the most important thing for us as a union is not the general public. It’s the membership. As long as members understand what they are fighting for, we are successful. And then the general public will see how serious we are. And they’re paying attention and they understand what Meredith just explained.
Regarding span protection, I think there’s a perception among some people that it may have inadvertently forced productions to drop people earlier than they would have done. I’m sure you don’t think so, but why not?
Good man: The argument is that the companies can afford to keep us. We got span protection and that helped a number of authors get compensated. The cap prevents them from helping all the writers. If we removed the cap on instep protection, companies would have to find a way to pay us. You can. You can afford this suggestion. The notion that there could be unintended consequences must be balanced against the fact that we fight for authors to be fairly compensated for the work they do.
Unexpectedly for Ellen, you’re following in David Young’s footsteps. And I wonder if you think there will be a difference? Do you bring a different style to the negotiation? Will it be the same as if he were there?
Stutzmann: We have the same negotiation approach as this guild. That means we negotiate with the power of our members. That’s what companies are reacting to. I don’t think the companies or our members should see it any differently. We have the same strategy.
Back to the idea that there is no such thing as an inevitable strike. It sounds like you all feel like there’s absolutely a way to strike a deal.
Good man: We cannot control how companies react to our suggestions. All we can do is make our proposals with a clear vision of what we are trying to achieve and ensure that what we are trying to achieve is in the best interests of our members and let companies know that we are serious. We do not make these demands lightly. These are serious demands for the benefit of our members. We have to hope that the companies take the deal with us as seriously as we do.
Stutzmann: It is widely acknowledged, even beyond our membership, that the changes in the industry that have shut writers out of the process or done so much work for them in a short amount of time for the lowest pay have gone far too far. And that the idea that serious action is needed because companies may not respond. So we always go in to make a deal. It’s just that this union was willing to fight for what they believe in.
Stiehm: We want a deal. That’s our goal. I’m just very impressed with the support and unity of the members. Figuring out exactly what is wrong and what the solution is is complicated. But what is not complicated is that people come to these membership meetings and they understand that we have a very big problem. It’s existential. We have to take action. And the vote was 98.4%. People mean business, as David says. This is a serious negotiation and I think the companies know that. Hopefully we make a deal, that’s the best outcome.
Good man: But we are not afraid to fight either.
Cynthia Littleton contributed to this report.