Did someone explain to her that the soaps are under a different contract, ie the actor's?

16 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

@LisaAnnWalter Apparently she is outraged that soap writers are writing the show & that the show is in production, etc. 

Let's be clear. Her issue was writers who bypassed the union strike and are writing scripts. She's valid in her opinion on that.

5 minutes ago, dragonflies said:

Did someone explain to her that the soaps are under a different contract, ie the actor's?

Lisa is talking about writers. Not the actors.

1 hour ago, dragonflies said:

Did someone explain to her that the soaps are under a different contract, ie the actor's?

Yes. She wouldn't listen. Then she blocked about a dozen people. 

1 hour ago, Errol said:

Let's be clear. Her issue was writers who bypassed the union strike and are writing scripts. She's valid in her opinion on that.

Lisa is talking about writers. Not the actors.

Indirectly it comes up because she then speaks of writers working on struck projects. Soaps aren't. 

 

1 hour ago, Errol said:

 

It seems to me that she's attacking Fi-Core writers. 

Just now, Donna L. Bridges said:

It seems to me that she's attacking Fi-Core writers. 

Which she should. They are union breakers. Soap writers fall into the same union and the same contract as all scripted TV and movie writers do. Only SAG-AFTRA has different contracts for its members.

7 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Indirectly it comes up because she then speaks of writers working on struck projects. Soaps aren't. 

For writers, GH is a struck project. Not for actors, however.

Good I'm glad she's not attacking the actor's. 

1 hour ago, Errol said:

Which she should. They are union breakers. Soap writers fall into the same union and the same contract as all scripted TV and movie writers do. Only SAG-AFTRA has different contracts for its members.

It seems to me that they're following a process, that they're doing it the right way & that it is a necessary evil. I agree that they are scabs. That's just definitional. In the past soap writers wrote the shows, were scabs & did all sorts of cloak & dagger to get away with it. Is Fi-Core not better? 

1 hour ago, Errol said:

Which she should. They are union breakers. Soap writers fall into the same union and the same contract as all scripted TV and movie writers do. Only SAG-AFTRA has different contracts for its members.

For writers, GH is a struck project. Not for actors, however.

Okay. I'll have to mull that over. Thank you, though. 

1 minute ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

It seems to me that they're following a process, that they're doing it the right way & that it is a necessary evil. I agree that they are scabs. That's just definitional. In the past soap writers wrote the shows, were scabs & did all sorts of cloak & dagger to get away with it. Is Fi-Core not better? 

No, it is not better. The "process" is just a legality. Anyone working during a strike is forgoing any long-term benefits won after the strike is over because their voice within the union is non-existent and they'll never be recognized by the union in terms of awards and they put themselves in jeopardy of never getting another writing gig again. Unless one is guaranteed employment at their show for the rest of their lives, Fi-Core is the worst thing one can do.

1 hour ago, Errol said:

No, it is not better. The "process" is just a legality. Anyone working during a strike is forgoing any long-term benefits won after the strike is over because their voice within the union is non-existent and they'll never be recognized by the union in terms of awards and they put themselves in jeopardy of never getting another writing gig again. Unless one is guaranteed employment at their show for the rest of their lives, Fi-Core is the worst thing one can do.

So, ideally, who should be writing the shows?

And, I begin to see why so many writers fought with other writers about Fi-Core in the past. 

Why do so many do it, then? 

45 minutes ago, Errol said:

No, it is not better. The "process" is just a legality. Anyone working during a strike is forgoing any long-term benefits won after the strike is over because their voice within the union is non-existent and they'll never be recognized by the union in terms of awards and they put themselves in jeopardy of never getting another writing gig again. Unless one is guaranteed employment at their show for the rest of their lives, Fi-Core is the worst thing one can do.

Facts!

FI CORE still pay dues? If so then why? 

22 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

So, ideally, who should be writing the shows?

And, I begin to see why so many writers fought with other writers about Fi-Core in the past. 

Why do so many do it, then? 

Ideally, no one. With non-union writers writing during a strike, the show should have shut down. I don't like that option. You don't like it. But that's the point of the strike. The fact that the soaps continue without scab/fi-core writers goes against everything the union stands for. That said, if someone chooses to do so (scab/fi-core), it benefits the show long-term but hurts the individual the most.

Yes, when you turn your back on the union, which is what scabbing/going fi-core is, it creates internal conflict with members who did strike and fought for the benefits they all will enjoy under the new contract. It's like if you sat out in the sun for 48 hours to win a car. Why should someone who didn't also get a car?

Essentially those who go fi-core or scab do it for money. I'd say power, but there's no guarantee they'll even have a job when the strike is over. So, pure money. 

Just now, dragonflies said:

FI CORE still pay dues? If so then why? 

Full benefits of the union, except will be frowned upon when writing jobs become available in terms of hiring, and won't be eligible for recognition by the union come awards time. Again, money.

Why do they even pay if they're FI CORE and it's so looked down upon? Why accept their dues? I mean that seems hypocritical IMO

1 hour ago, Errol said:

No, it is not better. The "process" is just a legality. Anyone working during a strike is forgoing any long-term benefits won after the strike is over because their voice within the union is non-existent and they'll never be recognized by the union in terms of awards and they put themselves in jeopardy of never getting another writing gig again. Unless one is guaranteed employment at their show for the rest of their lives, Fi-Core is the worst thing one can do.

Thank you for contributing to this. I am shocked at how willfully obtuse soap fans are being about her comments (other people like Warren Leight have also called them scabs), and keep throwing around Fi-Core like it is the same thing as an exemption or waiver. They can either choose to be full union members or they can continue to work by not being full members, designated as Fi-Core. It’s because of a legal ruling that said people that do not want to be in the union don’t have to be- they do, however, benefit from the negotiated contract and must pay fees to their union because of that. The actors on daytime must work if the show remains in production. No writer has to write for them.

If soap fans want to celebrate these folks as keeping their beloved shows in production that is their choice. It doesn’t change the fact that they are scabs and Fi-Core is working through a picket line, and these striking actors and writers have every right to call them out.

10 minutes ago, dragonflies said:

Why do they even pay if they're FI CORE and it's so looked down upon? Why accept their dues? I mean that seems hypocritical IMO

Because legally they are required to, due to the fact that they benefit from the negotiated contract when not on strike. It was a legal challenge involving non-entertainment unions that was considered a huge win for unions, because they may not have to be full members, but they have to pay for the benefits the collective bargaining wins for them.

Edited July 26, 20232 yr by titan1978