 Who are the Producers? Part 1 - Social Reflections on the Writers' Strike
|
Dec. 22nd, 2007 @ 09:17 am 
|
|---|
At one of the first rallies of writers’ strike Writers Guild of America, West, President Patric Verrone said, "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."
The primary fact to grasp about this strike is that the WGA is a small union pitted against some of the most powerful multinational corporations in the world. General Electric owner of NBC, Time Warner, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. owner of Fox, Viacom/CBS (largely owned by billionaire Sumner Redstone’s National Amusements), Disney and Sony -- these are the business entities that call themselves the "producers" in this strike. These multinationals have more power and money than most nations on earth and often act as if they are sovereign entities. Anybody who challenges their power, economically or politically, are on their enemies list and will be treated accordingly.
In fact, the people who own and run these companies "produce" nothing. As part of the usual "propaganda of the name", the organization through which these large multinationals negotiate is called "the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers" (AMPTP). But the actual "producers" in the industry have issued a statement that the multinationals of the AMPTP don’t exactly represent them. (I will have more to say on the ideology of this nomenclature in a future post.) These so called "producers" who control the AMPTP, spend most of their time fighting with other executives, "restructuring" their companies, making big financial deals with other companies. These big deals often enough lead to unemployment, reduced wages, and degradation of the common weal, while increasing the "compensation" of the big dealers.
These "executives" do not contribute to the cultural life of humanity, not even to the extent of being decent "patrons."* They are not modern Medici. The owners and "managers" of these corporations do not want to sponsor creativity, but only insure that it is within their control. The "cultural" choices that these new robber-barons make when buying the media of cultural propagation (the public air-waves, the municipal monopolies of cable, the retail outlets, the publishing companies, the internet companies, etc.) show no concern for anything but increasing the wealth and power of people like themselves and of the institutional entities that they run. There is little to deter their pursuit of wealth and power, because the social system we have created is based on the perpetuation of immortal entities called corporations that must expand or die. The matters of basic human decency, or of telling the truth about the world we live in, or even the minimal desire to provide laughter, thought, and tears, through good entertainment, are all subservient to the need for wealth and power.
Let me make this clear, this is not a matter of simple greed. Of course, we live in a social system where greed is good. But the personal preferences of the rulers and owners of these corporate entities don’t really matter that much at the end of the day. They may hate George Bush and give to charity and think of themselves as good people. Yet, if they don’t expand their profits, control, and power, then their businesses will be strangled and they themselves will fall from the top… often enough now days with a golden parachute.
In other words, there are institutional imperatives that make these people assholes.
Just as it is a mistake to think that this strike is mainly about personal greed it is also a mistake to think that this strike is mainly about money. It is important to be clear, that for the average WGA member the strike is about a better way of life and a secure future, for themselves and their families. But that is not what primarily concerns the big bosses of the multinationals. Their perspective is larger and wider. It is about power. It is about control of the future. It is about maintaining their oligopoly over popular culture.
The WGA estimates that over the next three years the extra compensation that would result if all the WGA demands were accepted would be 150 million dollars. This is truly a small amount for these companies.
Let's look at the facts.
Jeffrey R Immelt, CEO/Chairman of the Board/Director at General Electric Company, the owners of NBC, in 2006 was compensated $17,863,452 in salary and $19,778,460 in stock options, for a total of more than 37 million in one year. Over the course of three years that would out to be more than 119 million dollars. This is more than enough to cover General Electrics share of compensation to 10,000 writers.
Peter Chernin, of News Corp. owner of Fox, $33,985,578 in salary and $28,457,069 in stock-options for a compensation of more than 62 million in one year. His boss at News Corp., Rupert Murdoch, $32,135,675 and unknown amount in stock options. Over the course of three years of a WGA contract their compensation together would amount to much more than 280 million dollars.
Sumner M Redstone, owner and former CEO of Viacom/CBS made $16,436,125 as CEO of Viacom and $12,164,115 as Chairman of the Board of CBS. It seems his stock options totaled $45,621,293. Over one year this is more than 74 million dollars and the over three years of a WGA contract more than 222 million dollars.
I will not bore you with any more of these figures.
The point here is not that these "producers" are being paid an obscene amount, or that they can more than afford to compensate writers, directors, actors and all the people "below the line" from grips to make-up. My point is not the same propaganda thrust as made by WGA Pres. Patric Verrone, but rather a strategic observation. The bosses' ability to easily compensate writers is an indication that they see the primary struggle of this strike as not a struggle over money but a struggle over power and control, both in the present and in the future. I hope to write another post specifically on the world view of the bosses of these corporations, but suffice it to say here that their perspective is not limited to Hollywood and New York but to the world as a whole.
In many ways the propaganda of the AMPTP is correct but distorted, as through a glass darkly. In their propaganda everything is reversed. They claim that the strike is about "ideology." They are correct. But it is not the WGA and Patric Verrone who are adhering to an unyielding ideology, but the media moguls. They believe that if they don’t take control of their creative workforce and of new media, now, they will lose an essential part of their monopoly of media "products", in the future. And with this decline in control over new media will come a loss of power, primarily political power here in the U.S. and in the rest of the world. They say this strike is about the "future" of the industry. They are correct. But the future they envision is one where most of our cultural "product" is "owned" by a few huge multinational corporations. They wish to treat our cultural creativity as if it were mere kitchen appliances, food processors, blenders, microwaves. The creators of the "product" they wish to treat as mere "hands," who are hired to assemble the pieces, and then are laid-off when not needed.
The only way to change this situation is for ordinary people, people who actually do the work of creating and producing, to get together and try to counter the power of the multinational corporations. That in part is what this strike has come to be about. The WGA was forced to strike as a matter of simple fairness and compensation. This strike amounts to a lock-out by the media moguls. For them it is not a matter of money, the nickels and dimes that they carry in their pocket – the true matter of this strike for the multinationals is control of culture. In order to maintain that control they have decided to take the hit of a strike. They think they can afford it. But we, the rest of us, must support the WGA in every way possible. We must make sure that the multinationals come to see that they can't afford this strike. We must find ways to make them feel the pain of the loss of profits and power. In future posts I hope to speak of the strategy and tactics of this strike and the dilemmas of a small union opposing the Leviathan of multinationals.
Jerry Monaco
22 December 2007
New York City
[Caveat: I am not a member of the WGA, nor do I speak for any of the officers or members. I have been a member of other unions in the past and I am a supporter of a stronger union movement in the United States. J.M.]
This work is licensed under a Creative
Commons License.
* As a matter of fairness I must mention that the CEO of Sony is one, Howard Stringer, who started his career as a writer at CBS. Sony is a Japanese corporation. The star-culture of the great CEO personality cult has not yet hit Japan. Thus of all the CEOs on the list of union busters, Stringer is the only one who actually ever got his hands inky and the one who is compensated the least.
|
I saw your excerpt in ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif) wga_supporters.
When comparing the total residual payments with CEO salaries, it's not fair to use salaries of bosses of conglomerates. Jeffrey R Immelt is boss of GE, which owns a lot more than just NBC. A fairer comparison would be the residuals paid by NBC against the top-dog boss of NBC.
I'm not arguing the spirit of your comparisons. I think it's really sharp to compare the total pay to recipients of residuals with top-dog bosses. But when making such a comparison, it's only fair to use the entertainment division bosses, rather than the bosses of entire conglomerates. If they're not paid as much, one can still make a solid case by saying something like, "All the residuals paid by ... add up to just two year's pay for ..., head of their entertainment division."
Of course, the AMPTP is lying in their publicity statements, like the surgeon-writer comparison. Even when they're not lying, they're making misleading statements, using averages instead of medians, or using twisted definitions of "working writers". But that doesn't make an excuse for the WGA to follow the example and also use misleading language; the facts are on the union's side, so they have no need to be deceptive.
![[User Picture Icon]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/72078940/3072132) |
| From: | ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) monacojerry |
|---|
| Date: |
December 23rd, 2007 11:10 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
agree & disagree
|
(Link) |
|
I agree and disagree, but not because I believe using Immelt was deceptive but rather because I did not make my arguments in full. I believe that as far as this one business is concerned the General Electric bosses are driving the hard-line and not the NBC bosses.
Also, I must admit that I have a special enmity to General Electric that I will explain later. But this led me into not caring who is currently the boss at NBC and going for the bosses that I know about and have always followed. I offer this as excuse and not justification.
Also there are ways in which I agree with your criticism but would go much further in my criticism.
In order to make such comparisons, between CEO salaries and compensation of others, in the first place I have to assume that somehow this kind of inequality is wrong or harmful or unfair. As you can see, in my post, I make such an assumption without arguing that it is correct. It is possible that such an argument would be incorrect, and no matter what amount of inequality exists in any given society, or within any given institution, it is neither unjust nor unfair.
Also in order to make the comparison between CEO compensation and benefits in a comprehensive way I have to take on the task of making the case that the "compensation" structure of this business institution as a whole is somehow harmful or unfair or wrong. In other words the relevant comparisons in this case is with the CEO of General Electric and with the CEO of NBC and with the men and women on the Board of Directors; but further with the top executives generally and the middle-level executives, and “line” managers, and even with the secretaries, janitors, etc.
I see now that without going into all of what I outlined in the preceding paragraph I still have to reply to you at length. I hope to do so in a post in main body of this weblog.
Jerry Monaco
![[User Picture Icon]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/94186086/12126955) |
| From: | steve98052 |
|---|
| Date: |
December 23rd, 2007 11:47 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
Re: agree & disagree
|
(Link) |
|
When I wrote my comment, I had only read the excerpt version, not the whole essay. My reply was more to the parts in the excerpt than the whole, which I see is not just about money.
Anyway, I was thinking in terms of rhetorical points more than the broader issue of who controls entertainment and media in general. And in terms of rhetorical points, it sells the argument most strongly if people who look at a comparison can't react the way one does to those images on the AMPTP site. One doesn't want a reaction like, "But that surgeon image overstates the income of writers, and is way low about surgeons' income too."
Comparing the writers' income to the executives' isn't a good point of "fairness", because there's no one right way to measure "fairness" in terms of executive pay. It's hard to make a fairness case against the wealth of someone like Bill Gates, because he co-founded a tiny company and guided it into becoming a huge company, and shared the wealth generously with the creative people who contributed to the company's growth. On the other hand, it's hard to defend the income of an executive who takes control of an existing company when it's strong, and through bad decisions messes it up. But the executive pay system provides giant pay even for the failures; fairness isn't part of the system.
The best way to make a case for treating the creative workers well is to make a business case. An acquaintance is a twice-published novelist who wrote a very good book that sold poorly, and a decent book that sold better but still not terribly well. She had a third novel in progress but finally decided writing just wasn't worth it, and concentrated on her day job as a lawyer.
If the entertainment industry pays writers too poorly, they'll find other work, even if they still write as a hobby. Paying too poorly strangles production of the material, and the whole industry suffers. The industry may depend on executives to guide companies through all the financial crap, deal-making, and so forth. But it also depends on its creative people (writers and others) to produce entertainment that their consumers will buy, or support indirectly through advertising. Getting back to the comparison of executive and writer pay, one can make the business case that the collective output of the writers is worth at least as much to the entertainment industry as the deal-making of its executives.
In short, it's not just a matter of fairness, it's a matter of business sense.
|
| From: | monacojerry |
|---|
| Date: |
December 24th, 2007 11:13 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
Re: agree & disagree
|
(Link) |
|
As I said I want to respond in detail to some of the side notions that I brought up from your previous post.
I must say that in this post we disagree on fundamental issues. As with most such disagreements what would be most helpful is exploring those issues at the base of our disagreement. But as is usual in such matters that would require a reply at length, which I am certainly willing to do as part of my own entertainment, but I am not sure you would find it at all needful. But for now let me say that the very style of reasoning we have learned from economics I find harmful, untrue, and basically something that ultimately those who believe in solidarity with other working people should be fighting against.
I certainly agree with your statement: “But the executive pay system provides giant pay even for the failures; fairness isn't part of the system.” But the question is do people have a sense of fairness, that can be used to build solidarity among working people, so that they can fight for a better life for all? I believe that such notions as fairness, justice, and equity do count even if we live in a system where what we are told that matters is the economic bottom line.
When it is not the economic bottom line that “matters” then we are told it is a matter of the balance of power. A strike is ultimately about who-whom; who has the power to impose upon whom. At base it is about building solidarity with others who can also withhold their labor and change the balance of power away from the bosses and toward the workers. But this brings me back to the fact that I want to build this power on some kind of moral base of solidarity and not simply on one group winning or losing. If people don’t have a prior sense of what is fair and what is unfair as far as basic compensation is concerned then it is harder to build solidarity. I just assume that people do have this “sense of fairness”.
As a person who has studied a lot of philosophy, theology and cognitive science, I know that such assumptions must be explained and argued. But all these issues will bring us far from the basic issues of the strike. I am always happy to use my morning hours to think them through and I would like to reply at length to your comments.
Yes, fairness isn’t part of the system of compensation for work in our society or within corporate business institutions. If it were then a sanitation worker or an elementary school teacher would be making much more than investment bankers. But you will of course notice here, that this “conclusion” is part of my own prior moral judgement about what is useful in society and thus what is fair. Thus my analysis of society and how it works is that investment bankers mostly do harm, or rather it is the function of their work to do harm; and teachers and sanitation workers have jobs that are supposed to help people. But also my very notions of what is harmful and what is helpful also proceed from a prior moral judgement.
One can talk about fairness, and expectations of fairness, or justice, or equity, without expecting that the economic or political system we currently have is structured to deliver fairness, justice, or equity. In fact one of the points I would make is that fairness, justice, and equity are specifically excluded from our business institutions. But the reason this is the current state of things is itself a part of the decline in solidaristic institutions of civil society designed to fight for fairness in our society – such as unions. In other words the only way to reintroduce notions of fairness, justice or equity into the system is through organization and solidarity.
Notice though that the very ideas of fairness, justice, and equity always come from prior moral judgements. But the notion of “good business” also comes from a prior moral judgment of what is good for people.
That said, I think we both agree on the general issues of the WGA strike and that is enough for me in the very limited case of marching in solidarity.
Jerry Monaco
|
|
