My WGA displace sends a horrifying message
On August 8, the WGA announced that director Park Chan-Wook and I had been driven out of membership of our work on ‘The Sympatizer’, a HBO show that had been in postal production during the strike. The claim was that we had broken the strike rules with part of our work in the editing suite. The announcement was accompanied by a stately “thank you for your service” to the internal jury who had investigated the allegations. This was a strange gesture, given that the board of the guild had completely ignored the jury’s recommendations.
Months after the strike was resolved and our show was broadcast, the WGA was a trial committee to investigate an anonymous complaint. The committee’s task was to hear evidence and to make a recommendation to the WGA board about whether a strike violation had occurred and, if so, whether disciplinary measures were justified. The jury consisted of WGA writers and they took the job seriously. The hearing lasted two exhausting days. It was extensive and complicated because of the obvious, ambiguous overlaps between our roles as executive producers/show runners and in the case of Chan-Wook director, who were allowed to work, and writers, who were not. None of the leadership of the guild was there before the procedure, only their lawyers.
In the end, the five jury members issued the following recommendations. I quote them in detail because of the board, which they apparently never read:
“We see that the respondents have credibly demonstrated that their violations of the strike rules were not intentional …”
“We also discover that the respondents have shown credibly that their violations arose from misunderstandings about their role between their role as writers in post-production and their roles as executive producers, editors and directors, and that they believed that they are in good faith with strike protocol …
“Based on the findings of facts and discussion above, we recommend the board to issue a confidential letter from the censorship to both respondents …”
The board has clearly completely ignored all of this. Instead of the lowest level of punishment, a private letter, they gave us their highest – expulsion. The sentence was intentionally undemocratic, deliberately cruel and exaggerated.
There are several theories about why we were in particular the target but the intention behind the decision cannot be denied: it was a shock tactics to intimidate their membership, in particular the “link drawings” (showrunner director writers).
It is sad to me that a guild would consider such an action that is needed or will probably be effective.
I am a proud and long -standing member of three other trade unions and guilds of the entertainment industry. I have taken over about policy statements and lobbyed on their behalf for the parliament of my country. When I felt that my guilds were straying from their message, I was in contact with them and they have always listened and responded (without their lawyers being present). So I can say with some confidence that this kind of tyrannical behavior is not endemic for organized work. It is a problem of leadership. Normally, if the leadership of a guild would hear that well -intended members were unintentionally struggling with the rules, they would investigate the rules again. Rewrite them. Make them less vague and more realistic for the benefit of the entire membership.
There was no justification why the WGA council ignored their own jury in our case, and it is difficult to think of one.
The most generous excuse I can think of is that the board was steamed by their lawyers who know nothing about how TV is actually made and who, in their persecution, forgets the leadership. The theory is a piece, but based on what I saw in the tribunal, there can be some truth in it. If so, let me remember respectfully:
You are writers. You lead a fellowship of writers when solving the problems of writers. Empathy and understanding are the tools of the trade. Give the lawyers off and then a day off.
Note of the editors: The WGA has issued the following answer.
The WGAW constitution requires that the board of directors – the leadership body chosen by WGAW members – make the decision on the correct level of discipline for members who have been found guilty of breaking strike rules. A trial committee consisted of rank-and-file members guilty of providing writing services during the strike, including a creative overhaul of the pilot who amounted to rewriting the pilot story and writing dialogue. The Council has established that expulsion was the correct consequence for such a serious violation.
McKellar responded to the union:
It is clear that I am an objection to this wrong characterization of what happened (“The claim that these editorial changes for a beaten company is ridiculous” to quote one jury member), but I do not want to exercise the matter again. The “rank and file”, as they refer to the committee, is The WGA. I have read their split decision and their powerful letters of abnormal opinions. They prove that they are conscientious, intelligent and, by the way, good writers. Yes, the board has the power to ignore them, but why should they?
