Response From Craig Mazin To Shawn Ryan Letter On WGA Election

This letter is in response to a message from WGA member Shawn Ryan.

Dear Shawn:

It was great seeing you last night, and I’m glad I had a chance to address this with you face to face. As promised, here’s some of the answers you seek. I hope this leads you to reconsider some of what you’ve suggested in your email, which I think mischaracterizes my positions and intentions.

First, thank you for all of your service… and I completely agree that the mere fact of volunteering for my guild shouldn’t shield me from criticism. We’re supposed to challenge our leaders (or potential leaders) and stress-test their ideas through debate and discussion. I won’t lie… it hurts to be called a “scab” or a “traitor” for the crime of answering the Guild’s enthusiastic call for candidates for office. Then again, I know it comes with the territory, and I know you’ve been there too. You and I discussed that it’s frustrating when you’re doing your best to help writers and some of them are dead set on kicking you in the shins for it. I hope that maybe this exchange demonstrates that for most of us, disagreement is something we can still relay in the spirit of mutual respect. You’re one of our best and brightest, I think the world of you, and any disagreement we have about Guild politics isn’t going to ever change that.

I hold the old-fashioned Pollyanna view that everyone who runs and serves the union does so because they want the best for writers. I’ve worked and served on the Board or committees with John Wells, Patric Verrone, David Goodman, Dan Petrie, Elias Davis…. (a lot of white guys there, something this white guy would like to see us keep pushing beyond, btw) and while they were often in total opposition to each other in terms of strategy, I never questioned for even a second that their purpose was pure: to improve the lives and working conditions of the rank-and-file membership of our union.

So let’s get into your questions, concerns and suspicions. First, you mentioned the Discord group. I can’t really respond to that, because I’m not on it, and I’ve never been part of it. I’m not part of the Facebook stuff either. And I plan on taking a nice long Twitter vacation as well.

You wrote of Phyllis: “She’s going to be nicer to the agencies (including removing the threat of a lawsuit and the discovery that goes with it)…”

You’ve absolutely gotten that wrong. That is not her intention or plan. I’m sure she will have her own response, so for now I will speak for myself. I have no intention to be nicer to the agencies. I have no intention to remove the threat of lawsuits or stand down on the legal actions we have taken, and I would not support doing so in any way, shape or form. Those must stay in place until such time as we do bring an acceptable resolution to the membership. If we cannot achieve that, then those legal actions should remain until their inevitable conclusion in a court of law.

You and I have both served on a Negotiating Committee (well, you’ve served on a LOT of them). You and I both know how they generally work in regards to the AMPTP. We have a big room with a big committee. They have a big room with a big committee.

But that isn’t where the deals are made. At some point, David Young and our NegCom chairs and our President and maybe one or two key members go into a side room with some similarly small group from their side. That room is an informal one, where the real shit goes down. Eventually, both sides return back to their big rooms and say, “Okay, this is what we have agreed on in there… do you guys support it or not?”

If you want to know what I want… and how I would proceed differently than our current leadership… well, that’s a big part of it. I want us to get to that side room. We’re not going to get anywhere solely negotiating in a big formal room with the ATA representative speaking for their side. We’ve never negotiated a single agreement with the AMPTP that way, and we won’t possibly negotiate one that way with the Big Four agencies. We have yet to get into that side room. I believe the way the big room has proceeded has essentially foreclosed that possibility unless we add some new faces.

People ask me, “If elected, what would you concede to get them into the room where the sausage gets made?” Nothing. I would concede nothing. I think they’ll do it because I’m saying I would go into that room in good faith. A moment of good faith is all they deserve. If I don’t get it back, I’ll turn around and walk out.

People ask me, “But what specifically would you do in that room to get us some different conclusion? Tell us exactly! Right now! On Twitter.” Well, there’s a limit to what anyone can or should spell out in public. I’m sure when people asked that of you and Chris Keyser and Billy Ray during past negotiations with the AMPTP, your answer was some version of “Look, we can’t publicly air the kind of moves we want to make in there, but here’s what we’re aiming for, so let’s see if we can get it.”

I know that’s what Chris and Billy told me when I asked! And I understood that was prudent. But they told me what they were aiming for.

So here’s what I’m aiming for.

To me, the fundamental sin of packaging fees is, and has always been, the manner in which it disconnects agency income from writer income. Packaging fees in and of themselves are just money. The crime is the way that money disincentivizes agents from negotiating as aggressively as they can for their clients. For us.

If there is a way to reform the packaging fee structure so that agents were able to capture more of it based on how well they negotiated up front money for us — and in this case, I’d use the least-paid member of any project as the benchmark — then we would be foolish not to consider it. In short, if we can reform the system so that the more we get paid, the more they get paid, it would be a restoration of the principle that I personally find essential. Without that being restored, I do not see a way forward to supporting any compromise solution. Similarly, I cannot support a compromise solution that primarily benefits our wealthiest. Showrunners don’t need any more money. Our rank-and-file needs to see their base pay pushed upwards from minimums.

Now, if I had a magic wand, would I prefer they sign our Code as it currently exists? Absolutely. I am on record with this. Chris Keyser, John August and I discussed this on the podcast at the beginning of this action, and I don’t think we disagreed on any single thing about these evils. Furthermore, I have been a 10% guy my entire career. Until Chernobyl (which was packaged without my consent, so I assure you… CAA has felt my rage directly on this matter), I had never had a single dime of commission refunded. My relationship with my feature agent has always been pure. The more I make, the more he makes. He got zero dollars from my employers. That fundamental arrangement is why the relationship has felt mutually beneficial and fair.

Would I love to see that apply to everyone across the board? ABSOLUTELY. Do I think the Big Four are going to do that? No. I think they make SO much money off this odious practice, it will make more sense for them to preserve that system via directors and actors and earn nothing from us, vs. bringing us back at 10%… because directors and actors would likely want that in turn, and the beloved packaging money would disappear entirely. It sure would explain a lot… like why they’ve absorbed nearly a half a year of losses we have inflicted upon them, why they haven’t seen major agent defections to create new agencies, and why even the majority of smaller ATA agencies haven’t broken away.

If that’s true, it means we could hold our breath forever, and they won’t go back to 10% across the board. Of course, we have the legal action. We could win that. It would be expensive, but it would be worth it. The problem there, as you know, is that being right isn’t the same as winning. We’ve lost major legal actions before. We filed suits and challenged the companies on free rewrites, and we lost. We legally challenged the companies on their interpretation of the 2008 contract and whether or not new internet rates applied to the library, and we lost. I wish it weren’t so, but there’s a risk-reward analysis you have to do. If we can get a victory without subjecting our existence to the whim of a judge, we should.

So that’s the lens through which I see things.

Can I guarantee that merely by being elected and getting into a side room, I or anyone else can deliver what I’m aiming for? Absolutely not. Anyone who makes that kind of promise is a liar or an idiot. Here’s what I can guarantee: I will try my damnedest. If I fail, well… we’re right back to where we are now. That strategy doesn’t go away.

People might wonder why it’s worth trying at all. We have signed some of the smaller agencies to our Code. That is commendable, but I do have a different perspective on the reality of our situation. The majority of our membership was represented by the Big Four agencies. There are literally not enough small agencies to absorb that many writers effectively, and most writers who were with those agencies have not signed with one of the new agencies. Have you? I ask that honestly. I don’t know. But even if writers do want to sign with one of the new Code signatories, well… I already heard from one writer who said he was about to sign with Verve before the union severed us from the agents… and then after Verve signed the Code, he was told that they didn’t have room for him anymore, because bigger writers had come in as clients.

And then there are the managers.

I do not think they are the solution… and it legitimately shocked me that our Guild suggested to membership that this was a good alternative for career management during this union action. After all, managers don’t just advertise that they can and will produce our work… they do it without even the fig leaf of a fictitious legal wall between their representation and production sides. If we are disgusted by agents being our producers with minimal restrictions, what possible logic justifies celebrating managers for openly doing the very same thing without any restriction at all.

Which brings me to affiliate production. I hate the idea of writers working for representatives. Hate it. Haaaate it. I’ve never done anything with them. I’ve never even had a conversation with them. Nor will I ever. My goal on that front is basically to eliminate them. I have to tell you… on this issue, I don’t think there’s much daylight between myself and you or David Goodman or Marjorie David. There may be people that endorse me or whom I endorse who might disagree with that. So be it. Unlike packaging fees, which theoretically could be bent to serve us rather than hurt us, I don’t see how working for our own representatives can be made clean.

Now, my (least) favorite part of your email was when you said, “Here is what I promise you will happen in Mid-September should Ms. Nagy be elected. She will enter a negotiating room with the ATA and she will be nice, respectful and polite and she will say “Now that the radicals are out of the room let’s get a deal done and do something about packaging fees, affiliate production and transparency.” And Karen Stuart will smile right back at her and say “We very much look forward to ending this unpleasantness, but as it relates to packaging fees, affiliate production and transparency, we hold to our positions.” And, without increased pressure bearing down on them, they will continue to hold to their positions for the weeks or months necessary for Ms. Nagy to agree to a deal on their terms rather than on the WGA’s.”

Which brand of CBD are you rubbing into your eyeballs to get this amazing new power of clairvoyance?

Look man, you can’t promise people that, because you can’t promise people that. You literally invented a scenario, and now you’re holding other people accountable to it as if it’s real. You didn’t call Phyllis. You didn’t email Phyllis. You googled for a bit, then started astral projecting into fiction.

I don’t intend to be nice or respectful or polite. I intend to be aggressive as hell, because I’m as pissed off as you or anyone. Again… listen to the podcast I did with Chris and John. Or read the transcript! It’s here if you want: https://johnaugust.com/2019/the-future-of-the-industry

If Karen Stuart or Bryan Lourd or Jay Sures or Ari Greenburg or whoever wants to say “we hold to our positions,” and I can’t break through that, then guess what?

I come back to all of you and say, “Well, I tried. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, and all that. But they’re holding to their positions for absolutely fuckin’ sure, so we’re holding to ours for absolutely fuckin’ sure.” That’s it.

You wondered, “Could people as smart as Phyllis Nagy and Craig Mazin really be so naïve about negotiation strategies and reality?”

The answer is NO. People as smart as you think we are would not engage in the kind of absurd fever-dream of weakness you just imagined on our behalf.

You continued, “I can’t be sure, but I fear that she and her slatemates are laying the groundwork for going back to the agents quickly, regardless of what needs to be conceded in order to do so. If that is their intention, that they just don’t want this fight and they just want a do-over and desire to return to their agents whatever it takes, then they should say so plainly and let the membership vote on that.”

Well, I can be sure. That is unequivocally, 100% not true. In no way, shape or form can we go back to our agents. Withholding our client-hood from them is essential to our leverage. Can we now bury this elaborate straw man into the ground and speak of it no more?

You asked some additional specific questions. I’ll try and answer them as best I can.

Q: “Are packaging fees and affiliate production the issues that you describe as “agency abuse” and must a deal with the agencies eliminate or greatly curtail them or are you willing to strike a deal on behalf of the WGA that leaves both these practices largely intact?”

A: Either we bend packaging fees to serve “you make more when we make more” on behalf of our rank-and-file, or we stay away until the courts render a verdict. In terms of affiliate production, I want to destroy it.

Q: “If your promised “measured, calm, respected, reasonable — and yes — negotiated — path” doesn’t lead to quick, meaningful gains with the ATA are you willing to change your tactics or will you just strike the only deal available to you at that time in order to have writers return to their agents.”

A: My position is that our current strategy is the default strategy. If we can’t get a good solution via compromise, then we stay the course.

Q: “A large part of your rationale for running was that current leadership wasn’t negotiating and that the most vulnerable members of the Guild were suffering as a result of the ATA action. Considering that the Guild in the past week just made deals with two ATA signatories, Kaplan-Stahler and Buchwald, as well as a new agency comprised of departing Abrams agents, along with a new Guild report that shows that absent agents, television shows were fully staffed and hiring of women and diverse writers increased (albeit marginally) from last year to this year… does this change your calculus for running or does current leadership deserve any praise for these developments?”

A: I believe severing permanently from the Big Four will come with collective costs to writers. They will continue packaging on behalf of their directors, actors and NWPs. This will pose a threat to our hegemony in television. I’ve already heard horror stories of showrunners being placed under the thumbs of NWPs and directors.

I suspect many of my sisters and brothers in TV cannot imagine such a reality coming to pass. Well, I’m from features. It’s not a paranoid campfire tale. It is the only reality I have known for 25 years. They want to take our power from us. Why wouldn’t they? Having the Big Four solely on their side will make that much, much easier for them to accomplish. Even a moderate erosion of writer primacy in television would be disastrous for us.

In terms of diversity, while I appreciate the desire to spread good news, the fine print on that report literally says “These numbers will change.” It’s based on 60% of reporting. Moreover, it’s not the right comparison anyway. The industry is trying hard to improve diversity numbers, and I’m proud that we, as writers, are at the forefront of that as we put together writing rooms. In theory, each year should be better than the one before. The question isn’t “how much better is it this year than last year?” but rather “how much better (or worse) *would* it have been this year with agents, vs. without?” If we’re up in diversity by 1% without agents, but would have been up by 5% with them, then this isn’t much of a success.

I have listened to a number of diverse writers who have told me how they have been hurt by this. Their stories are real, and we need to account for this as we proceed. I don’t want to be so casually dismissive of claims that it is hurting our most vulnerable… and certainly not if that confidence is based on incomplete data and a report that literally states that the numbers will change when all of the data is in.

You ended your email with your own anecdote about your dealings with your agency. The moral of the story was that negotiating hard won’t make your opponents hate you. Rather, they will respect you for it. I agree. They will respect bare-knuckle negotiations. That’s what I want to engage in, and I would truly love it if someone as experienced and dedicated as you were right next to me while I did it.

Look, there’s a reason we hired these agents in the first place, right? We hire them to be animals for us, to go out and beat people up for us and get us the best deal. They’ve managed to screw that up, and then screw it up more… and it’s been so screwed up for so long, I think they actually began to think they hadn’t really screwed it up at all. Well, those days are over. Now it’s a fight. We have to fix it or leave them behind. Either way, we cannot go back to the status quo.

I write all of this to you knowing full well that they will see it. I want them to see it. If the agents think that someone like me is going to make things easier for them, well… LOL.

I’m glad you gave me this opportunity to express my heart and mind to you, and I hope you choose to share it with the people you originally emailed. And if in the future you find yourself wondering what I think, just ask me. We don’t need to imagine the worst versions of each other. This isn’t Democrats and Republicans. The agents are the other side. This guild election is a primary. All of us running are doing so for the best possible reasons. ALL of us. My opponents, my friends, people I endorse, people I don’t.

Everything else is just “what’s the best way to win this Guild-Agency fight we’re in?”

I know there are people who feel that the mere fact that some of us are challenging the incumbent leadership is an act of Guild-weakening. I’m happy to see that you disagree with that. I’ve often felt that my loyalty is to the membership. I pay my dues, volunteer service to the Guild, and follow the Working Rules because that’s how I keep good faith with my fellow writers. I don’t believe anyone should replace “loyalty to the Guild” with “loyalty to the incumbent leadership.”

I mean… if I get elected, are the people who didn’t vote for me supposed to become loyal to me? I’m pretty sure they won’t, and they shouldn’t.

So let’s keep talking. We need to take care of each other as best we can and be as kind to each other as best we can…
…because the enemy is at the gates, and the biggest fight is yet to come.

Gratefully,

Craig