By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

WGAw Issues A “Stop Work Order” Against Comedy Central

Posted Monday, November 26th, 2012 - Comments Off on WGAw Issues A “Stop Work Order” Against Comedy Central
Be Sociable, Share!

Dear Writers Guild Member,

We are writing to alert you that you must refrain from writing for Central Productions, the production arm of Comedy Central, without first contacting the WGAW contracts department to ensure that the writing is Guild-covered. If you are currently writing on a Central Productions project, please contact us immediately. Central Productions is not signatory to the MBA, and if there is no Guild contract in place specifically for the project you are working on, you are now required under Working Rule 8 to stop writing.

Background: In 2007, writers on five Comedy Central shows produced by Central Productions organized together to gain Writers Guild coverage. As a result of the writers’ collective actions, though the company refused to sign an overall MBA deal, the five shows became covered by individual Letters of Adherence to the MBA. From 2008 to 2011, the Guild signed agreements covering 37 additional Central Production pilots, series, roasts, and specials, resulting in WGA coverage of all non-animated shows on Comedy Central.

In late 2011 the Guild learned that 15 Central Productions projects had been written without a Guild contract in place, although the writers were led to believe that the projects were Guild-covered. Since the writing had already been completed, Guild negotiators were unable to count on writer leverage to negotiate the deals, and P&H contributions could not be accepted by the benefit funds. After Central Productions’ representatives pledged to change these practices, Letters of Adherence were negotiated retroactively for those 15 projects.

Earlier this year the Guild learned that Central Productions had done it again: they hired writers on more than two dozen new projects without first securing underlying deals with the Guild. Again the company represented to writers that such Guild deals were in place. No other major entertainment company has treated writers and their Guild so cavalierly.

To protect writers from these practices, this summer the Guild entered into negotiations with Central Productions to reach an overall deal that would eliminate the need for project-by-project Letters of Adherence. These negotiations are ongoing. We intend to take this opportunity to negotiate the best possible contract terms, including industry-standard residuals formulas. We also intend to protect against the company’s practices of hiring writers before a deal is in place, and of attempting to negotiate MBA terms directly with individual writers rather than with the Guild.

As a result: until an agreement with Central Productions is concluded, Writers Guild members may not work on uncovered Central Productions projects.

It is never easy to ask a fellow member to stop working. We understand all too well that such a call comes with the real possibility of personal sacrifice. We do not do it lightly. But the principle that we work, all of us, under a contract with certain basic protections that may not be undercut and that may not be re-negotiated, member-by-member and case-by-case, is the cornerstone of our strength. As Central Productions’ behavior has proven once again, Guild coverage cannot be a sometimes thing. And so, while we might rightly say to Central Productions shame on you, what we say instead is: no more. Without a contract there will be no work. And we must say that together – all of us, no exceptions — as a Guild.

Thank you for your support as we negotiate to ensure that all current and future writers at Central Productions enjoy the protections and benefits of the Writers Guild agreement. Please contact us with any questions or concerns.

Chris Keyser
President

Howard Rodman
Vice President

Carl Gottlieb
Secretary-Treasurer

David Young
Executive Director

Be Sociable, Share!

Posted in Movie City News, Press Releases | Comments Off on WGAw Issues A “Stop Work Order” Against Comedy Central

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon