As I mentioned in a piece I posted a couple of days ago, the current WGA/AMPTP negotiations have been uncharacteristically in the public eye, given the fact both sides have agreed to a media blackout during negotiations.
The studio side has issued several public interim updates, which the WGA was forced to respond to with their own press release. And both sides have been busy behind the scenes, reaching out to some reporters off-the-record or on background to clarify their position or provide some context and clarity about positions taken on the other side of the negotiations.
The latest round of dueling press releases began Tuesday night, when AMPTP released what they said was the proposal they presented to WGA negotiators when talks resumed on August 11th.
The AMPTP proposal did move off of its previous "we won't talk about the size of writers room" stance, but instead of a mandatory size, the proposal left it in the hands of the showrunner:
There are a number of problems with the AMPTP proposal, including the fact that leaving the decision in the showrunner's hands means that inevitably the studio will pressure some showrunners to opt against bringing in two more writers. And then there is the problem with the definition of "showrunner" itself. Some streamers have already begun making the showrunner position a non-writing one, instead making a producer or director the default showrunner and simply hiring a "head writer" to run the writers room. Which would take the writers out of the decision-making process entirely. And as several WGA members have suggested to me, the main thrust of the AMPTP proposal seems to be an effort to normalize the idea of a standard writing room size of a showrunner and two full-time mid-level writers. Which ducks most of the complaints the WGA members have had about the size of writers rooms.
Also, the proposal does offer up to 20 consecutive weeks of work, but only during the duration of the writers' room. Which doesn't address the problem of the current disconnect between the span of the room and the production of the show.
Compare to the AMPTP offer to the original WGA proposal, which suggested a minimum staff of six writers (including four Writer-Producers) in a pre-greenlight room and a post-greenlight room of one writer per episode up to sixepisodes, then one additional writer required for each two episodes after six up to a maximum of twelve writers. The latest AMPTP offer is better than no counter-proposal. But the two sides are clearly very far apart.
The latest AMPTP offer also ignored or glossed over some of the biggest demands from the WGA feature writers, including some sort of weekly pay component. And even when the offer did address a WGA concern, the language included carveouts big enough to guide Bob Iger's yacht through with ease:
This provision highlights that the studios have "agreed to a guaranteed second step for writers," while limiting the offer to writers working on the first draft of an "original screenplay." While I haven't been able to find an official breakdown of the percentage of original vs IP-driven screenplays, this limitation would lead to very few feature writers actually being paid a second step fee.
There were also a number of provisions in the original WGA proposal that were ignored in the latest AMPTP proposal, including the right for individual WGA members to honor other unions' picket lines and whether the DGA deal would be the deal on any pattern issues.
I had heard from several sources over the weekend that the negotiations had been much less rosy than the studio-leaked updates to the Hollywood trades would suggest. And that certainly seems to be the case based on the public response from the WGA negotiators:
On Monday of this week, we received an invitation to meet with Bob Iger, Donna Langley, Ted Sarandos, David Zaslav and Carol Lombardini. It was accompanied by a message that it was past time to end this strike and that the companies were finally ready to bargain for a deal.
We accepted that invitation and, in good faith, met tonight, in hopes that the companies were serious about getting the industry back to work.
Instead, on the 113th day of the strike – and while SAG-AFTRA is walking the picket lines by our side - we were met with a lecture about how good their single and only counteroffer was.
We explained all the ways in which their counter’s limitations and loopholes and omissions failed to sufficiently protect writers from the existential threats that caused us to strike in the first place. We told them that a strike has a price, and that price is an answer to all – and not just some - of the problems they have created in the business.
But this wasn’t a meeting to make a deal. This was a meeting to get us to cave, which is why, not twenty minutes after we left the meeting, the AMPTP released its summary of their proposals.
This statement tracks with what I have heard from sources on the studio side. That despite calls from some industry journalists that the media CEOs needed to be a bigger part of the negotiating process, some of the CEOs appear to be a big part of the problem.
Several sources have described Iger as being "personally offended" by the unwillingness of the WGA to agree to the latest AMPTP offer, while Netflix's Ted Sarandos seems to be concerned with agreeing to terms that will used to set a precedent for other territories where Netflix has heavily invested in local production. The immediate concern would be the UK, where unions there are already making some noise about next year's negotiations. And there are similar future concerns in South Korea, India and other APAC markets.
I'll be interested in seeing the promised further public response from the WGA. I have no idea how this is going to play out. One thing that is clear is that the two sides are still very far apart. And that's not even factoring in the lack of current SAG-AFTRA/AMPTP negotiations.
