yes, they sure did, but not enough, because at the time they accepted their last labor agreement, they were being paid when the studios and producers were selling their work on in other distribution avenues covered by that agreement, and now they studios are selling them on in other avenues of distribution which weren’t covered by that agreement, and aren’t compensating them for it.
It’s really not that difficult of a concept. It’s all in the employment agreement you work under.
I can get behind fair wages, but I don’t understand residuals. You were paid to do a job, but you also expect a cut of whatever future revenue it might achieve?
You were paid to do a job, but you also expect a cut of whatever future revenue it might achieve?
If it’s in the contract then yes.
If you’re wondering why it’s in the contract, this is very common in lots of different business types.
Up front, there may not be a desire to make a huge investment. What if isn’t a success? So you tell whoever is making , “hey, we’ll pay you measely dollars now to make it, and pay you percent of money that comes in for it down the road.” This way you can invest a smaller amount up front ensuring the thing gets made, but everyone involved gets a cut based on the future success.
Since the success/amount made isn’t determined in a one-time deal, you pay out the shares of the success over time: aka residuals.
If you don’t understand residuals, like owning stocks, which continue to pay out on future worth through dividends, when their values go up, I’d suggest you pick up a book.
I mean why not? If your labour helped create the thing, and it’s still generating value, why not receive a share of the value? Especially when higher up execs who might not have even worked on it at all are making bank from it.
Have you thought about ther needs? What if they need a new yacht or private jet? They only made a hundreds of millions of dollars last year. Only tens of thousands of dollars a day. How are they supposed to live in that salary?
It sure doesn’t. It’s not difficult, only expensive, and expenses studio executives would rather stay in their own pockets, forever, which is why they’re striking.
I get why this is something that comes to mind but the idea is changing the way things are done to pay the labour more of the value of the product they produce.
It’s basically just updating their agreement to work with streaming and other new avenues to make it the same way it worked for them on network TV before.
Didn’t the writers get paid a salary during the production?
yes, they sure did, but not enough, because at the time they accepted their last labor agreement, they were being paid when the studios and producers were selling their work on in other distribution avenues covered by that agreement, and now they studios are selling them on in other avenues of distribution which weren’t covered by that agreement, and aren’t compensating them for it.
It’s really not that difficult of a concept. It’s all in the employment agreement you work under.
I can get behind fair wages, but I don’t understand residuals. You were paid to do a job, but you also expect a cut of whatever future revenue it might achieve?
Residuals are quite common outside of Hollywood. Just look at the deal Nike made to steal Jordan away from ADIDAS.
If it’s in the contract then yes.
If you’re wondering why it’s in the contract, this is very common in lots of different business types.
Up front, there may not be a desire to make a huge investment. What if isn’t a success? So you tell whoever is making , “hey, we’ll pay you measely dollars now to make it, and pay you percent of money that comes in for it down the road.” This way you can invest a smaller amount up front ensuring the thing gets made, but everyone involved gets a cut based on the future success.
Since the success/amount made isn’t determined in a one-time deal, you pay out the shares of the success over time: aka residuals.
If you don’t understand residuals, like owning stocks, which continue to pay out on future worth through dividends, when their values go up, I’d suggest you pick up a book.
I mean why not? If your labour helped create the thing, and it’s still generating value, why not receive a share of the value? Especially when higher up execs who might not have even worked on it at all are making bank from it.
Sounds like there just needs to be a part of the agreement that states that any new future avenue pay x amount or renegotiate. Doesn’t seem that hard.
Hence the strike I guess
Hence the strike.
Well hell! What’s the strike all about when this person figured it all out?
What’s that, you say? Greedy capitalists are greedy?
Have you thought about ther needs? What if they need a new yacht or private jet? They only made a hundreds of millions of dollars last year. Only tens of thousands of dollars a day. How are they supposed to live in that salary?
It sure doesn’t. It’s not difficult, only expensive, and expenses studio executives would rather stay in their own pockets, forever, which is why they’re striking.
I get why this is something that comes to mind but the idea is changing the way things are done to pay the labour more of the value of the product they produce.
It’s basically just updating their agreement to work with streaming and other new avenues to make it the same way it worked for them on network TV before.