DGA Not Giving In to Congloms

Today's Los Angeles Times talks about "Directors Guild Talks Intensifying" -- and it's a fascinating article.

First off, it points out the the DGA always has "informal talks" before their main negotiations -- and in these informal talks, all the parameters of the deal are worked out so that when formal negotiations begin, they can go quickly and smoothly.

This time, it's apparently not so smooth.

In their current talks, directors are said to be frustrated over what the studios have indicated they would offer them in the area of Internet residuals, according to several people briefed on the discussions who declined to be named because of the confidentiality of the talks."Anybody who thought this was going to be a cakewalk for either side was mistaken," one said. "These are tough issues that have to be hammered out."

And I keep saying it: We aren't the problem. The AMPTP is the problem.

What we've done, and continue to do, is making a difference in those back-channel discussions. The WGA strike -- and SAG's firm support behind us -- have given the DGA leverage that they never would otherwise have had.

Much is made of the DGA's role as "peacemaker" in the town -- the union that can get people back to work. I fervently hope that they do. There's every chance the moguls will offer the DGA a decent deal eventually (when they realize they can't bully them into anything else) and then the congloms will trumpet how the strike was all for nothing, and they would happily have given the WGA the same deal if we'd only been "reasonable" before.

And that's just fine with me. Because all I care about is a fair deal for Internet work. But at the moment, it doesn't look like the DGA is being any more "reasonable" than we were -- they don't want to work for free either, or see their health and pension gutted as new work moves to the Internet.

With NBC publicly crowing about $1 billion in estimated ad revenue for digital (which includes streaming) this year alone, the conglom's assertion that they can only afford to pay writers $250 a year for their work is looking a little unreasonable. And apparently it does to directors as well.

And the article answers the question I hear people ask a lot: if the DGA takes a deal that doesn't address our Internet concerns, is the WGA bound to it? The answer is NO.

Hollywood has a history of "pattern bargaining," in which the first contract settled between one of the talent unions and the studios become the template for subsequent contracts.However, there is no guarantee the writers or actors will automatically approve the deal negotiated by directors.

Translation: pattern bargaining doesn't guarantee that whatever the DGA takes, we all have to take. And that's good: it gives the DGA power to tell the congloms that they'll only take a deal they know can end the strike.

Because that's what they want too. We all want to go back to work -- the directors, the actors, the writers, and the studios as well:

The writers strike has given DGA chief negotiator Cates and Executive Director Roth considerable leverage with the studios, which are eager to end a strike that has imperiled the current and upcoming television seasons and thrown Hollywood's awards season into disarray.

Let's hope that the DGA can get the moguls to listen. Or at least give them a way to save face.

All we want, all the town wants, is a fair deal.