|
| Home | Contact Info | Media Kit | Front Pages | Feedback | Subscribe | Production Listings | Stages | Screening Rooms | Screening Series |
Blog the Line
The writers strike rhetoric has escalated to a different level.
What began as a labor dispute over wages and residuals has morphed into a battle of egos and a fight over the nature of the creative contribution to entertainment content. As Mark Williams points out in his Union Roundup column in the December 17 issue of Below the Line, for many writers this has become a culture war in which they seek to preserve their status as equity owners in the content they help create.
For the rank and file, that equity takes the form of residuals. The studios would like to minimize those payments and limit their extension into new media such as the internet, which they’ve called a promotional adjunct to mainstream distribution. The writers want to ensure that residuals are extended into new media, which they say is a growing source of revenue for the studios and networks.
Contrary to popular belief, claims the WGA, it’s not only writers who benefit from residuals (see Tim Day’s commentary on page 14 of the same issue). IA members and Teamsters, they say, also benefit from residuals—although not in the same way. Rather than being paid directly as cash, these residuals go directly into those unions’ pension and health plans.
Hence, the argument goes, all workers should back the writers’ fight to preserve and increase their residuals because the outcome of these negotiations will have an impact on “residuals”—i.e., pension and health payments—throughout the industry.
Not everyone agrees. The other day Below the Line received an angry letter from a cinematographer. We didn’t publish because he wanted to remain anonymous, but his feelings are indicative of the way many below-the-line workers feel as they see their jobs evaporate.
He said, in essence, that comparing the kinds of residuals writers make to the residual payments that go into IA pension and health funds is comparing apples and oranges because IA members’ PH&W “is attained by working a set number of hours a year, not by how much our projects gross.”
These are complicated issues that we’d like to examine further in the pages of Below the Line as well as on this Blog. We invite members of the industry to participate in this dialog by sending us their comments.

2 Responses
Craig Miller
December 17th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
1The unnamed angry cinematographer is misinformed. That cinematographer is the one confusing apples with oranges. Individual members participation in the health and pension plan are based on the hours that member works. But the companies pay money into the plans based on the same residuals structures they use to pay the writers, actors, and directors. An episode reruns and money goes into the health plan and into the pension plan. Individual member contributions (paid by the employers) aren’t sufficient to cover the costs. It’s residuals payments that make up over half the money that funds the plans. The “set number of hours” determines if an individual member is currently eligible.
BP
December 17th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
2The pension trust document at the MPIPHP website looks like something that has been translated to English from French from the original Chinese. The word Residuals is in the document twice. Once in the table of contents and as a heading for a section about contributions from Receipts that is full of ambiguity about what a receipt is, what gets contributed and just what percentage of what they’re talking about. Despite the word Residual being used, it doesn’t look like anything I’ve seen like the documentation SAG provided me with regarding what they consider residuals in our contract. Also, it’s not broken down on my husbands’ or my MPIPHP statement every year. It shows hourly, investment and some other minimums contribution but nothing about residuals or receipt sharing. He’s a shop guy so he doesn’t work on individual shows per se so maybe this makes a difference. Back in 2001 they did list the pre-60’s receipts with an amount of $0.00 even though he had a qualified year. Is this less clear than mud for anyone and what’s a good source to find the real data?
RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave a reply
Calendar
Categories
Archives
Meta