It sends my Wga expelling a chilling message
On August 8, WGA announced that director Park Chan Wook was expelled from the membership of our work in “The Deptizer”, a HBO show that was in post -production during the strike. The claim was that we had left the bases of the strike with some of our work in the editorial wing. The announcement was accompanied by “Thank you for your service” to the internal jury, which has been in allegations. This was a strange gesture, given that the union board completely ignored the recommendations of the jury.
Months of the strike resolved and our show was broadcast, WGA formed a trial committee to investigate an unknown complaint. The mission of the committee was to hear the evidence and submit a recommendation to the WGA board of directors on whether a violation of the strike occurred, and if so, if there is a disciplinary procedure. The jury was made up of WGA book and took the job seriously. The session lasted for two days. It was comprehensive and complicated by the mysterious clear overlap between our roles as producers/executives-in the case of Chan Wook-allowed to work, and the book, who were not. There was no one from the union’s leadership there for the procedures, only their lawyer.
In the end, the five jury issued the following recommendations. I quote them at length for the council, which is clear that he never read them:
“We find that the respondents showed the credibility that violations of the bases of strike were not intended …”
“We also find that the respondents have proven credible that their violations arise from misunderstanding about the lines between their roles as a post -production book and their roles as executive producers, editors and managers, and that they believe that they comply in good faith with the strike protocol … we find that their violations were not caused by existing representation or harmony …”
“Based on the results of the facts and discussion above, we recommend that the Board of Directors issued a secret letter to the censorship of both respondents …”
It is clear that the council ignored all this. Instead of the lowest level of punishment, a special speech, give us the highest expulsion. The sentence was intentionally unprecedented, deliberate harsh and more.
There are many theories about the reason for our targeting, in particular,-but the intention behind the decision is indispensable: it was a tactic intimidation to intimidate their membership, especially the “arrivals” (the book and the director).
It saddees that any union will consider such a necessary measure or is likely to be effective.
I am a proud and long -term member in three unions and other unions in the entertainment industry. I consulted with them on politics and pressed their behalf in front of my parliament. When I felt that my country’s unions were affected by their message, I contacted them and always listened and responded (without the present they are). So I can say some confidence that this type of Spanish behavior is not a settler work. It is a driving problem. Usually, if the leadership of the Syndicate hears that the good -intentions were inadvertently struggling with the rules, they will re -examine the rules. Repeat them. Make it less mysterious and more realistic in favor of the entire membership.
No justification has been presented why the WGA board of directors ignored our jury in our case, and it is difficult to think about one.
The most generous excuse that I can reach is that the council has been diluted by their lawyer who knows nothing about how to make TV already and who, in the enthusiasm of the Public Prosecution, made the leadership themselves. The theory is an extension, but based on what I saw in court, there may be some truth. If so, allow me to remind them with respect:
You are a book. You are leading a book fellow in solving the problems of the book. Poourism and understanding are trade tools. Once from time to time, give lawyers a holiday.
Editor Note: WGA released the next response.
The WGAW Constitution of the Board of Directors – the leadership body that is elected by WGAW members – requires a decision on the appropriate level of discipline for members who were convicted of violating the bases of strike. A trial committee consisting of members of the rank and files found that MCKELLAR is guilty of providing writing services during the strike, including the creative reform of the pilot, which reached the rewriting the story of experimental and dialogue in writing. The board of directors decided that the expulsion was the appropriate result of such a dangerous violation.
McLear responded to the union:
Obviously, I object to this bad exposed to what happened (“Emphasizing that these editorial changes constitute writing for a compressed company is unfamiliar” to quote from one jury), but I do not want to give up the case. “The rank and the file”, as it indicates the committee, He is Wga. I have read the decision to divide and their strong messages from the opposition. They prove themselves as conscience and intelligent, and by the way, good writers. Yes, the council has the ability to abolish them, but why should they?