Rasheed Newson: Why I am running for the WGA board
I have been a WGA member for 11 years. I’ve worked in television drama with my writing partner, T.J. Brady, every step of the way from staff writer to co-executive producer. I am black, I am gay, I am married, and I am a father of two kids.
I mention these things about myself because they shape my policy positions. I don’t just pay lip service to the systemic discrimination that keeps writers of color from advancing (beyond the handful of superstar exceptions); I am a writer of color who has at times been marginalized and dismissed because of my race. I am not someone who only imagines the hardships of being a member of the LGBT+ community during Pride Month; I am gay all year round, and I have been the only homosexual in a writers’ room trying (and too often failing) to fend off the old stereotypes that persist.
The hardship of middle-class writers is not an issue I need spelled out to me. I understand the importance of having a salary quote rise because I split my salary with my writing partner — and, yes, that’s a financial reality I willingly embraced. Yet, the pressure to support my family is nonetheless real. Late payments and exclusivity clauses have played havoc with my family’s budget.
Furthermore, I have worked for broadcast networks, cable channels and premium streaming services — on shows where my former agency had the package and I paid no commission, and on shows where my former agency didn’t have the package and I forked over 10%. I’m versed in the pros and cons of each environment.
In short, I know the playing field, and I see the landscape changing around me. We have pressing issues to confront. If elected, I hope to be one of several new, forward-thinking members joining the WGA board of directors.
Please vote for Phyllis Nagy for President; Craig Mazin for Vice President; Nick Jones, Jr. for Secretary-Treasurer; and for the Board: Ayelet Waldman; Ashley Miller; Sarah Treem; Courtney Kemp; Jason Fuchs; Marc Guggenheim and Nick Kazan.
Course Correction
For the past decade, I’ve spent a lot of time in television writers’ rooms and have heard fellow scribes discuss the challenges facing working writers — shorter TV seasons; onerous exclusivity clauses; a streaming model that is decimating residuals; and the gradual extinction of mid-level TV writers, etc. In all that time, I don’t recall packaging fees being on the list of top concerns.
Yet, despite the threats on the horizon, our guild is looking to the past. We are waging the greatest labor disruption since the 2007–2008 strike over the terms of a 1976 contract. We are essentially engaged in a crusade that would have made perfect sense circa 1982.
Why are we doing this? I believe it is because our current leadership doesn’t know what to do about the emerging business models that are threatening our collective financial future — so they’re sacrificing time and money and goodwill in a prolonged attack on an old business practice that writers and agents blithely engaged in for 40 plus years.
Our guild is fighting the wrong war. And we aren’t even fighting it that well.
Moving Forward
— We need to resume talks with the ATA and negotiate a deal that maximizes packaging revenue sharing, transparency, choice, and protections for unpackaged writers.
— The ATA cannot negotiate on behalf of the Affiliated Production Companies (APC). We need to negotiate deals with these production companies separately and push for better terms on span protection; penalties for late payments; script fee parity between cable shows and broadcast shows; larger streaming residuals; and increases to the health and pension funds. If we succeed on this front, we could use the deal with APCs as a template for our 2020 AMPTP Master Contract negotiations.
— In preparation for AMPTP negotiations, we need to spend money and time gathering legitimate data about the business trends affecting our members. No more anecdotal “evidence.” No more essays. We need numbers. It is not enough to say, Staffing season was a success because all the shows got staffed. How many mid-level writers got hired this staffing season? Is that up or down from last year or from five years ago? How many women got hired? How many writers of color got hired? Again, how are those numbers trending? The guild tells us how many people earned money writing in a given year, but more useful stats would break that down further: how many writers earned less than $50,000? Less than $100,000? And so on.
Such data shouldn’t take years to collect. Nor do we need to comb through contracts from agents to get it. Showrunners could report this information to the guild. They make the hiring decisions; show us your rooms.
— Regarding showrunners, the guild needs them to be more forthcoming about their hiring practices. Imagine if a few weeks after staffing season, every showrunner had to report to the guild about the demographics of their staff: what levels they hired at, how many women (and at what levels), how many writers of color (and at what levels), how many LGBT+ writers (and at what levels). Now take that information, show by show, and make it public (not years later, but in early June after staffing season ends), and the exposure (yes, the fear of embarrassment or backlash) might very well boost diversity numbers.
I say let’s give it a try because nothing else has done much to improve diversity numbers for the past generation. And if you’re wondering if the guild can compel showrunners to divulge such information, recall that the guild just forced every writer with an agent to fire his or her agent. If that can be done to 7,000 rank-and-file members, showrunners can be made to disclose the demographics of the staffs they hire. In fact, one might wonder why the guild didn’t just order showrunners and creators to refuse continuing to package their shows under threat of Working Rule 23. But I’m trying not to dwell on the past. Let’s move forward.
— Rasheed Newson
