LA Times Reports on Progress In Negotiations

The media blackout continues, although it's getting hard to tell. Today's Los Angeles Times is running a front page story titled "Writers, Studios Outline A Deal."

It has some of the most detailed information to date on how the informal talks have gone so far. When we compare it to what our off-the-record sources are saying, it appears to be fairly accurate.

We'd like to highlight the following parts:

Who did the negotiating?

David Young, Patric Verrone and John Bowman on the WGA side, and Peter Chernin and Bob Iger on the companies' side. From the Times:
That stood in contrast to previous sessions with the writers in which top media executives weren't at the bargaining table and were led instead by Nick Counter, president of the producers association, and labor relations executives from the major studios.

Is the deal done?

No. As we mentioned in an earlier post, details are still being hammered out, and contract language is key. Until that language is drafted, nothing can be considered to be truly "done." To be as clear as possible: Things that are agreed to in the room aren't "real" until we have at least a serious start on contract language, and even the most optimistic estimates say that process will take a week.

Attorneys from the studios and the guild were meeting over the weekend to discuss contract language for the proposed agreement, which would need to be ratified by the union's 10,500 members. Even before a vote by members, the strike would probably be called off if board members strongly endorse the deal.

There are some issues that have yet to be resolved, including defining what qualifies as promotion on the Internet. The debate centers on the extent to which networks can run video clips and other materials on their websites to promote TV programs before paying writers.

Is this deal a carbon copy of the DGA deal?

No. It appears to use the DGA deal as a template, with key adjustments for writers.

On Friday, however, studios offered some key concessions to ease those concerns [that the DGA deal was inadequate on streaming and Internet-first jurisdiction] and keep the talks on track. Those included more favorable pay terms for streaming than those offered to directors. Studios also offered "separated rights" provisions for shows created for the Web, ensuring, for example, that writers would receive extra compensation and credit for online shows that spawn TV pilots, two people close to the talks said.

What happens now?

Verrone, Bowman and Young are expected to present a summary of the deal points to the Board on Monday.

Then, over the course of next week, the contract language will be drafted, to protect/assure everyone's understanding of the deal points insofar as possible.

By Friday at the earliest, depending on how well the drafting goes, there could be a preliminary contract with all the most important areas covered. Despite the LA Times' assertion that contract will be "final," that seems to be an imprecise use of the word.

A final contract could be presented to the Writers Guild of America board as early as Friday, according to three people close to the talks who asked not to be identified because the negotiations are confidential.

As Mark Evanier has pointed out, "final" wasn't reached in the 1988 strike until well after everyone had gone back to work.

Does this mean it's over?

Not yet. The only leverage writers have to make sure the deal points agreed to in the room actually end up in the contract, is to stay strong and united until the contract language is drafted. And not to be alarmists, but keep in mind who's in charge of that on the companies' side:

Having done the heavy lifting, Chernin and Iger will now step back and rely on labor relations executives to formalize contract language this week.

These "labor relations executives" are some of the same folks who stalled negotiations with the WGA for months. Iger and Chernin had to step in themselves -- both with the DGA and with the WGA -- to get anything substantive accomplished. And we've learned from off-the-record sources that while the DGA contract language was being drafted, there were at least two occasions when the DGA's understanding of the agreement differed from the labor relations executives, and a CEO had to personally intervene to keep the process on track.

We desperately hope that, in this case, that won't happen. There's too much at stake for the knee-jerk legal norms of Hollywood to kick in, in which it's the job of Business Affairs to try and whittle down the deal in the contract stage while claiming "but that's not our understanding of what our bosses said." (This is a more common experience among screenwriters than TV writers, because TV contracts tend to have more uniformity. There's no "boilerplate" to use in an historic negotiation like this, so we can expect the drafting to take a little time.)

We hope the drafting will go smoothly. But we have to be prepared that it might not.

And all of the above assumes that when the deal points are released and the contract language drafted, that the membership at large will ratify it. Each of us has a vote, and we must decide for ourselves if we can live with what this deal delivers for the next three years.

We'll see it soon. And then we'll all decide.