Modest Proposal: CEOs Go First

Our latest modest proposal was submitted by Michael "Mose" Schur, a producer of "The Office." -JA

Now that my job has shifted from writing jokes in a dumpy office in Van Nuys to walking in a circle for four hours a day, I find that I have a lot of time to think about “greed.” It’s sometimes hard to explain to people that we are not striking to make sure Aaron Sorkin doesn’t have to fall out of escrow on his eleventh vacation home, but rather for the vast majority of our union who work sporadically, who average $62,000 a year, and who often find themselves undesirable hirees around age 40 if they never managed to land a job on a hit show.

So how do we get our point across, to people who don’t understand why we’re doing this? The best way I have found, is to say: everything on the internet? We get zero. They get everything. They get millions and millions and eventually billions and billions, and we get zero. And the “they,” here, is basically six of the biggest baddest companies in the world, run by men who annually receive salaries and compensation well north of 50 million dollars.

This attempt on their part to lock down the internet for free... this is just good old-fashioned corporate greed, is what this is. This is old-timey Rockefeller union-busting land-grab stuff. In a weird way I admire it. It’s been a long time since something as potentially valuable as the internet was invented – in fact, it was probably television itself. And every time something like this comes along – railroads, oil drilling, oceanic shipping – a very small group of men get together and wring their hands with glee and plot and scheme, and try to squeeze out every single cent they can. The representatives of these six companies are only doing what their corporate fathers did before them – collude, wield power, screw workers, doubletalk, and hide behind lawyers. (I particularly admire the badass way they publicly announce to their shareholders how valuable the internet already is to their bottom lines, while pleading ignorance on the same subject at the negotiating table. It takes guts to be that disingenuous. God bless ’em.)

But I’m not just going to complain. I’m here to offer a solution. If they want to offer me absolutely nothing when they stream my show on-line, (NBC shows were streamed 50 million times in October alone, according to Jeff Zucker), and further offer the comically-low 0.3% residual rate on things like iTunes downloads (“The Office” was downloaded millions of times from iTunes, and then NBC pulled its content off iTunes because they wanted more money), well, over time they will end up reducing my salary by something like 85%. That seems like a pretty drastic paycut. But, according to these guys, there is simply no money to pay out, they’re not making anything! The cost of shows is rising, everything is so expensive now, and they honestly have no idea what we could possibly be thinking when we zzzzzzzzzz.

If they’re right, and there needs to be some belt-tightening, and we should take the 0.00% rate on everything we ever write or act in, then I say: sure. I will take that rate, as long as you take it with me. If every one of you studio mogul types takes the same 85% reduction in your salaries, I will accept your terms. The good news is, you will still be grossly rich. Sumner Redstone of Viacom made about $52 million in cash and stock last year, so he’d still have close to $8 million a year. Peter Chernin of Fox made about $61 million, so he’s good. Sadly, Les Moonves of CBS only made about $35.3 million, so taking the paycut barely leaves him $5 million a year. Maybe he can get a bridge loan or something.

Taking these reductions in pay would certainly send the message that you guys are trying so hard to send – that there is just no money to go around, and that we must all take pay cuts in order to keep television and movies a viable money-making industry. (A quick non sequitur-style congrats to Disney, by the way, who last week announced net profits of $877 million for their last fiscal quarter, on revenue of $8.93 billion.) And the good news is, if it doesn’t work out, and you’re fired, maybe you’ll get one of those sweet $190 million Mike Ovitz severance packages.

I say, let’s all make this sacrifice together. If you eight guys take 15% of what you make now, I will be back at work tomorrow. I will write like the wind, buoyed by the inspiring knowledge that my corporate brothers stand beside me in this crucial time of belt-tightening for our industry. We will all make the necessary economic sacrifices to keep the eleventy-trillion dollar entertainment industry afloat, while you have the crucial three years you claim you need to “study” the internet to see if anyone can make any money off this confusing new invention. Lord knows Google hasn’t figured it out yet.

Together, we will get through this. Together, writers, actors, and absurdly-paid businessmen will sacrifice our salaries in order to save American entertainment as we know it. Now who’s with me?

In solidarity,
Michael Schur