Topic for today: The WGA strike

Why my opinion on this should count: I have read at least 3 blogs by TV writers. Also I watch a lot of TV. Especially now. I watch mostly scripted TV dramas. I hate the vast majority of "reality" TV. I refuse to watch TV news. So basically, without the WGA my TV viewing goes down to The Amazing Race. People, I am unemployed here - I *need* TV to fill my days. (Kidding! Sort of.) Plus, I once appeared on a game show and when it re-aired I got a second "thanks for playing, loser, here is your parting gift" - so that's basically a residual, yes?

Point the first: Calling full length episodes watched on the internet "promotional" to avoid paying residuals to writers (and Actors? Crew members?) while getting ad revenue from the same is a slimy, slimy move. Selling episodes for iPods and saying that revenue doesn't count for residual-calculating purposes? Slimier.

Point the second: One of the writers' blogs I read, and a YouTube video I have watched use the "but we *need* the money, we might lose our houses" argument. Or "almost half of us are unemployed at any given time." Which... huh? These things are assuredly very, very important to the writers themselves. But I do not see what they have to do with how residuals should be paid.

The strongest way to spin this point would be to say something like "when I took this job residuals were about $x per year and they have gone down a lot so my salary has, effectively, been reduced." The "but we *need* the money" thing? To me? Sounds like the whining of people who didn't plan their financial future very well. Just like the people who took on home loans that were ridiculous imagining that it would all work out (by magic I guess) in the end.

As a currently unemployed person, I do understand what it is to have no active income. But I am not in danger of losing my house because I saved up. I have an emergency fund. I did not buy a house that I could not afford. I factored the cost of COBRA into my "how much money would I need to support myself for a year if I had no income" calculations. If I had chosen to work in a field where prolonged unemployment was virtually guaranteed, I would have had an even larger emergency fund. Were I a writer, for financial planning purposes, I would treat residuals the same way I treat stock options. Not real actual money until it is in my hot little hands. Not even something I consider a part of my compensation. Am I all judgy on this point? Yes. Deal. If you choose to work in a field that has intermittent work, then you plan for the intermittent income financially.


Conclusion: I agree with the writers. I may disagree with how the argument is being framed. But I agree with the basic premise - if residuals are part of the industry-wide compensation practices, and they are, then they should apply every time money is made off of the works in question. Period. This is just as true for someone who has never been unemployed as for someone who has only worked 1 out of the past 5 years. This is true for someone who has $100, 000 sitting in a savings account and true for a writer who lives month to month.