One of the sticking points of the negotiations between the WGA and the producers is the "no-strike" clause.
Verrone and the WGA leadership have insisted that they will not accept a no-strike clause in this current round of negotiations. They have insisted on the right not to cross picket lines of their sisters and brothers. This negotiating plank should not surprise anyone who has paid attention to the Verrone leadership in the last few years. He has continually insisted on the need for union solidarity across the board. But it should surprise all of those who have watched unions accept no-strike clauses as if they were simply a part of every preformed labor contract. I think apart form any other issue, the WGA's insistence on eliminating the no-strike clause, would give some importance to this little unions strike.
Jerry
On Dec 11, 2007 5:31 PM, Jerry Monaco <monacojerry at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 11, 2007 1:53 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Dec 11, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Jerry Monaco wrote:
> >
> > > I think that the importance of this strike is underestimated by
> > > traditional
> > > leftists.
> >
>
> Let me first talk about the lead up to the strike. Patric Verrone, the
> president of WGA-w was elected on a militant program a few years back. He
> immediately, and for the first time in a long time for a Hollywood union,
> began building bridges to other unions, and not just traditional Hollywood
> guilds. There are little known facts about what Patric has been doing. He
> has been trying his best to get his union and Hollywood people in general to
> support organizing of janitors for example, but also organizing of hotel
> workers, etc. There is a reason why L.A. unions have lent tremendous
> support to WGA-w (unlike the previous writers strike) and why most unions
> have refused to cross their picket lines. Verrone made sure that he was
> their for other unions when they needed help. It might not sound like much
> but a writer with good Hollywood connections can bring some publicity to
> organizing drives.
>
> In other words for mostly accidental reasons WGA-w has made itself a
> strategic symbol within the Los Angeles labor movement as a whole. This is
> a little strange but not unprecedented. Studio unions have in the past
> spear-headed unionizing in L.A. After all Hollywood was a company town
> for so long and a breakthrough there meant a breakthrough for the L.A.
> labor movement in general. One of the first big strikes after WWII was an
> attempt to organize studio carpenters on an industrial union basis. (This
> was opposed by IATSE and most of the other trade guilds.) The success of
> the carpenters spurred a post war organizing drive in L.A.
>
> Which brings me to the current strike: As soon as PV was elected the
> producers have been maneuvering to provoke an early strike. There are
> reasons for this. Patric was elected on an "organizing the unorganized"
> platform. The Hollywood establishment has been finding ways to create new
> job titles and runaway shops in order, in effect, to make Hollywood a
> non-union town on the grass roots level. The industry leaders aim to create
> a system where labor organizations are only for the privileged allies of the
> industry heads. And WGA-w stood squarely in their way. The industry heads
> want to make the WGA an example not only to all other Hollywood unions but
> to the L.A. union movement in general. So that is why the producers first
> came to the table with deals that gave nothing and in fact would have made
> the union contract weaker.
>
> The writers are often the spear-head for the Hollywood creative unions in
> general. Typically their deal sets a pattern. Thus what the WGA gets the
> directors will get and the actors will probably get triple. One reason so
> many actors have been out in the street walking the picket line is that most
> of the industry has concluded that the real aim of this strike is to get the
> actors to back down. Thus another reason for the producers intransigence
> was to force the writers to strike now and not form a united front with the
> actors whose contract comes up next year. What the producers fear is a
> united Hollywood where both (or more) unions go out together. If you read
> the industry magazines this is clear. But reading the L.A. times business
> section you also realize that the business class in L.A. has decided that
> they fear the exact same thing.
>
> In a stump speech Verrone has made the following point about the de facto
> pattern bargaining that the writers are spearheading connecting it up with
> CEO sallaries: "If the producers gave us everything we wanted --
> everything. And they then made a deal with the DGA and matched it, which is
> what they would do. And then they made a deal with the Screen Actors Guild
> and tripled it, which is typically the pattern. If they did that, if they
> gave us everything, on a company by company basis, they would be giving all
> of us less than each of their CEOs makes in a year. And in some cases a lot
> less."
>
> I think it can be argued that the salary structure of Hollywood industries
> -- with star CEOs -- has set the example for other industries. In other
> words the kind of thing that is now usual where the CEO is paid 400 times
> more than the production worker in the industry was started in Hollywood
> before elsewhere. This is perhaps because Hollywood believes in "star"
> salaries. I am not quite sure of this but I have heard some leftists who
> have studies Hollywood history argue this. I have heard Patric say that
> Hollywood often sets patterns in these areas.
>
> Finally, let me get to the symbolic nature of this strike. One of the
> most frustrating things about the TWU strike two years ago was that the
> union did not try to reach out to the rest of us in any systematic or
> sophisticated way. In Los Angeles the writers have set an example of ways
> to reach out to others. Hundreds of fans have marched on the picket lines
> with writers. Organizing of teams of fans to walk the picket lines has
> taken place over and over again. Whether we think its funny or not these
> middle class writers have made their fight into a symbol of union solidarity
> in L.A. at least.
>
> I am not sure how the way writers have organized "fan" solidarity for
> their strike translates to the union movement in general but the fact is
> that these gals and guys have been very creative. Too bad other unions
> can't get them (plus their Hollywood friends) to organize similar
> solidarity movements with other unions when they go on strike.
>
> Jerry
>
> P.S. Doug, I am a bit biased here because I am good friends since high
> school and college with people deeply involved in this strike. So perhaps I
> exaggerate its implications. But the more I look around the more I think
> that this strike of a small union could be exemplary for the union movement
> as a whole and is certainly very important for the Los Angeles union
> movement as a whole, and is absolutely crucial for the Hollywood industry.
> To say the least, this may make or break the very idea of a creative union
> in Hollywood. It is a watershed moment for that industry and I think that
> other industries are looking closely.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > According to the BLS, the strike affects about 4,000 workers. Insofar
> > as "traditional leftists" think in the millions, 4k ain't bupkes.
> > And, you know, they work with words, not things. Some of them make
> > good money, and those that don't can always go to law school. And
> > Hollywood is a debased place that fills our heads with false
> > consciousness anyway. So fuck 'em.
> >
> > I don't believe any of that, and really hope the writers win - but
> > what would the upshot be for the broader class struggle?
> >
> > Doug
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
>
>