1/17/2008

Once More With Feeling: Rumor that DGA Has Reached A Deal

Ok, here we go again -- this is just a rumor, folks, but this time we do have confirmation from a couple of sources that seem reliable.

People close to the DGA negotiations are telling us and others that the deal is done, and will be announced in the very near future.

Once again, I want to stress this is a rumor. If it's true, the most important thing we can all do is stay calm and evaluate the terms of this deal. The worst thing any of us can do is react reflexively on either side of the spectrum -- either by saying "no matter what the deal is, we have to take it to end the strike" or by saying "if it's not exactly what we asked for, it's not enough and we have to reject it."

The real solution is, will have to be, a middle ground between those two positions.

None of our sources have any idea what the terms of the deal will be -- the DGA has been scrupulous about their media blackout. But odds are very good that it will be less than we wanted, but more than we could have gotten any other way.

We gave the DGA leverage that they would never otherwise have had. Let's hope it paid off. But we won't know until we see the deal -- if indeed it turns out to exist.

12 comments:

Jeffrey said...

This is a story from the Reporter -

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3iefd89889d715d6d1ee441de2b576915c

Nearly identical stories from Variety and the Variety Blog to the one from the Reporter.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117979193.html?categoryid=2821&cs=1

http://weblogs.variety.com/wga_strike_blog/2008/01/view-from-the-t.html

ALL are rife with tactics to divide and mislead. Notice whom is quoted and in what manner. Someone is positioning (guess who?) for End Game - we are being 'handled' and manipulated. That only means one thing - The DGA deal will not be good - at least not good for US. Be prepared. Do the right thing.

Ruthie said...

"The real solution is, will have to be, a middle ground between those two positions" of saying "no matter what the deal is, we have to take it to end the strike" or "if it's not exactly what we asked for, it's not enough and we have to reject it."

Middle ground, why? Why would we ever approve a deal that's not what we asked for?

Hoffa said...

I totally agree, amazing how those directors can steal the spotlight from writers with only a rumor. This is the Auteur theory in action.

Bill said...

"Middle ground, why? Why would we ever approve a deal that's not what we asked for?"

Because thats what a deal is all about - some form of compromise agreeable to both parties.

BTL 399

Caitlin said...

Ruthie, because "middle ground" is not "approving a deal that's not what we asked for"; it's just also not rejecting any deal that isn't exactly what was asked for. Negotiations are negotiations and you aren't going to get every one of your terms, no matter how reasonable they are. Especially not when you're negotiating with someone like the AMPTP.

Jeffery, Hoffa, I'm echoing what people said the last time this rumor surfaced, but while we shouldn't assume it's what we want, why should we assume it isn't? The DGA's been smart. This happened quickly (if it's true), but not overnight. Of course, some changes will almost certainly have to me made. But we need to look at this as something to build on, regardless of what it turns out to be.

And remember, last time we heard this rumor, it apparently wasn't true. I'm keeping my fingers crossed because, as far as I'm concerned, it's either no news or good news. Either we reject it and stay on track or we accept it, with some reservations, and get people back to their jobs faster. Don't assume anything yet, good or bad. Just hope for the best. Prepare for the worst...heck, I'd say we have that covered. For now, we just need to wait and see.

Geo Rule said...

My goodness that Variety piece ought to be an embarrassment to anyone aspring to the honorable title "reporter".

Anyway, maybe we'll see soon. I still think that DGA didn't spend two years and million of dollars studying new media issues, shared their findings with the WGA leadership before the strike began. . . .and will now just roll over. There's no logic to that, so I refuse to believe it until I see it.

Jake Hollywood said...

So, the implication is that if the WGA (and this includes me, too) refuses this "template" that somehow they were never interested in negotiating a fair deal with the AMPTP?

For once there's real leadership in the WGA, people who are actually interested in the welfare of writers. True leadership. Leadership which stands up and refuses to be influenced by the AMPTP, by public opinion or the DGA, and most importantly it won't succumb to the WGAs own history of mistakes and failures.

Just because someone suggests that the DGAs deal sets the standard and all it needs to be is tweaked so the WGA membership will accept it forgets that this time around that this WGA isn't the WGA of yesteryear. And I'm damn glad it isn't.

jimmy said...

ruthie - negotiations are about meeting in the middle. neither side should get what they want in a fair negotiation, because they generally have opposing interests.

For instance, the writers are asking for 2.5 percent on the revenue for new media. (I think)

What if the DGA got 1 percent?

Is that good enough for the WGA to settle?

That's what he means by not rejecting an offer that isn't exactly what you want.

And if the DGA got one percent, is there a reason the WGA can't go back to the table to try to get a little more out of them in exchange for reality and animation?

What if the studios pull a "take it or leave it" without wanting to talk again? Should you settle? Or see what the NLRB comes back with?

All complicated questions that have no simple answer.

But finding the middle ground is the only way any strike ever ends.

Carrie said...

I just read the article in Variety and what a sorry piece of reporting. And I use the term reporting loosely. The first three paragraphs have no quotes, give no names, or even allude to having sources. Not even a mention of someone who wants to remain anonymous. I sincerely hope that the DGA strikes a deal that's good for their membership and has a structure that makes AMPTP feel like they can come back to the negotiating table. But, if not I hope the writers stay strong and hold out for the good of their own current and future membership.

Tan said...

variety.com announces

The DGA’s reached a tentative deal with the AMPTP, following six days of negotiations.

The pact was announced early Thursday afternoon amid widespread expectations that the helmers would reach an agreement with the majors.

The DGA deal amps up the pressure from all sides on the leadership of the Writers Guild of America, which has been out on strike since Nov. 5. Its last negotiations with the AMPTP collapsed on Dec. 7 with the congloms demanding that the guild drop six of its proposals.

The town’s focus will immediately shift to whether the terms of the DGA deal will be acceptable to the WGA. A group of moderate writers have been pushing in recent days for the leaders not to reject the DGA deal out of hand.

Optimists believe that the DGA deal will be enough of a breakthrough on new-media questions to pave the way for a WGA pact.

symmons2 said...

jake, real leadership. wow. what a statement. a negotiation is a give and take, nothing more nothing less. don't give me the attitude that if it's not exactly what pat and david and the wga want your going to continue to strke. that's sound like my 3 year old.
give and take. this has nothing to do with what was lost in the 80's or with pat's ego or yours. look at the big picture.

BTL Guy said...

I can't believe everyone's arguing over the merits of a deal which may be just vapor anyway.

*IF* there's a deal (and I'm not forwarding this rumor to anyone this time!), maybe we could all wait to hear what it is (like Laeta suggests) before either ripping it to shreds or impulsively signing it.

My personal guess is that the DGA wouldn't sign a deal that isn't acceptable to WGA, at least not this quickly. But if it's not acceptable, then it's not acceptable.

Acceptable doesn't mean perfect. It also doesn't mean crap. It means that, when you consider the costs of not signing it, versus the benefits of signing it, you decide signing it is better. (Again, that's a definition of an *acceptable* deal, not necessarily a definition of *any* potential DGA deal).

At this point, no one knows for sure what it is, or if "it" even exists...