A writer (Lynn Martin) from Y&R said in February that she and other contract writers were let go three months after they returned from the strike.  (Link)   She pointed out that writers can be let go for whatever reasons every 13-week cycle, (same as actors).   

The implication is that writers who were on contract as writers before the strike, would be brought back after the strike, but they'd only be guaranteed to be kept for duration of their 13-week cycle.  (It wasn't clear if the cycle reset from the beginning after the strike, or if this meant cycles that started before the strike would finish out after the strike.)

My point being that maybe they had to bring firedguy's wife back after the strike but they probably don't have to keep her longer than whenever her 13-week cycle ends.  We'll see in three months who is on the writing team then.

Edited May 18, 20241 yr by janea4old

10 minutes ago, janea4old said:

A writer (Lynn Martin) from Y&R said in February that she and other contract writers were let go three months after they returned from the strike.  (Link)   She pointed out that writers can be let go for whatever reasons every 13-week cycle, (same as actors).   

The implication is that writers who were on contract as writers before the strike, would be brought back after the strike, but they'd only be guaranteed to be kept for duration of their 13-week cycle.  (It wasn't clear if the cycle reset from the beginning after the strike, or if this meant cycles that started before the strike would finish out after the strike.)

My point being that maybe they had to bring firedguy's wife back after the strike but they probably don't have to keep her longer than whenever her 13-week cycle ends.  We'll see in three months who is on the writing team then.

That would make a lot of sense. They have to be careful about not appearing to fire writers for having gone on strike.

22 minutes ago, janea4old said:

My point being that maybe they had to bring firedguy's wife back after the strike but they probably don't have to keep her longer than whenever her 13-week cycle ends.  We'll see in three months who is on the writing team then.

Makes sense.  Thanks!  

12 minutes ago, Michael said:

That would make a lot of sense. They have to be careful about not appearing to fire writers for having gone on strike.

If I remember correctly, DAYS did fire the entire writing staff during the 2007 strike.  I think some of them came back but most of them didn't. 

In the Lynn Martin interview I cited
(Link)    at about 16 minutes into the interview she says:

Especially, you know, and I love the Writers Guild -- they give me my insurance and my pension -- but they were like yeah “go on strike and they can't fire you when you get back”.

And we went back -- and they were like “you know what your contract is up” because our contracts go in 13 weeks. Every 13 weeks, our necks are on the chopping block.

1 hour ago, Toups said:

If I remember correctly, DAYS did fire the entire writing staff during the 2007 strike.  I think some of them came back but most of them didn't. 

Didn't Corday get fined for that?

46 minutes ago, AbcNbc247 said:

Didn't Corday get fined for that?

Not sure. 

3 hours ago, janea4old said:

A writer (Lynn Martin) from Y&R said in February that she and other contract writers were let go three months after they returned from the strike.  (Link)   She pointed out that writers can be let go for whatever reasons every 13-week cycle, (same as actors).   

The implication is that writers who were on contract as writers before the strike, would be brought back after the strike, but they'd only be guaranteed to be kept for duration of their 13-week cycle.  (It wasn't clear if the cycle reset from the beginning after the strike, or if this meant cycles that started before the strike would finish out after the strike.)

My point being that maybe they had to bring firedguy's wife back after the strike but they probably don't have to keep her longer than whenever her 13-week cycle ends.  We'll see in three months who is on the writing team then.

And, when Lynn Martin spoke about this I talked to a friend, former HW, and she said this has been going on ever since FiCore got established. Before FiCore if they hired a scab to write in non-strike time, that was hiring a non-union member to do a union member's job & the union fined the show for doing that. But, once the scabs being hired were FiCore, well, they were dues-paying members of the union, so, the union would NOT fine the show. Naturally, but it's a kind of catch-22. 

AA was a buddy of Ken's , so keeping his wife on the show might be a gesture from Ken to lessen the financial strain the couple may face, and show his support to a friend.

As stated, we'll see over time if she stays around.

Months ago, when Sonja Alarr wrote the episode featuring the aftermath of Ava's assault, I felt it was appropriate to call her out.   The parallels between the backstage HR crisis and the story of men having trouble believing the story of a victim who murdered her attacker in self-defense was objectively offensive.  Because it furthered the myth that violence toward women is morally ambiguous if it is possible that a man didn't understand the woman's intention.

However, that was something that occurred on screen.  There is no evidence of collusion between the Allars as per his treatment of actors on set.  Neither Ari Zucker nor Camila Banus ever suggested that Sonja Alarr inappropriately stood up for her husband in all of their public statements.  Neither of them would have anything to lose by singling her out if that was true.  In fact, Ari mostly complained about how unfair it was that none of her male co-stars were asked to take a paycut, and how few of them supported her concerns.  So, vilifying a woman for doing her job doesn't feel like the right vibe for this situation.

Thus, I fail to see how not firing a union contracted writer for the misconduct of her husband is awkward or a poor visual.  Most of the comments about Friday's episode praised the cliffhanger, as well as scenes between Holly and Nicole.  As such, I remain unconcerned about any implied association with crediting her as writer for the episode.

Edited May 19, 20241 yr by j swift

How did Nicole not slap Holly a billion times after her cruel and vicious words?

Holly went to see Marlena because she felt guilty. Marlena gave her the same speech that Nicole did during her tantrum. Yet, she believed and trusted Marlena words but not her mom's?😂

The cliffhanger was great and messy! I loved it!😂

31 minutes ago, Soapsuds said:

Marlena gave her the same speech that Nicole did during her tantrum. Yet, she believed and trusted Marlena words but not her mom's?

At the risk of responding too often about a single episode, I felt like the Marlena scene served to make Holly a bit more likable.  When she was so vulgar to her Mother as to bring up her dead babies, I thought Holly came across as incredibly bratty; especially for a romantic lead.  In the past, when Hope got mouthy with Julie as a teen, or Ciara was sassy toward Hope, there was a line of good taste that they rarely crossed.  But, for the audience to care if Holly and Tate get to go to prom, we can't hate her for being so terrible to her mother that it seems like Tate would be better off by finding another girl to date.

That being said, Marlena's advice that Holly should write a letter to her Mom felt antediluvian.

But, I enjoyed that Nicole is still so chaotic that she day drinks after a fight with her kid.

 

Edited May 19, 20241 yr by j swift

Holly and Tate potential pairing has gone up in smoke with the recast. I miss JMM in the role as Tate.

And Tate new friend is a dud. 

Nitpick: Albert Alarr not Alan. 

It's awkward as hell. She was a total nepo hire. There's no reason to think she was qualified. The optics are so very bad. But none of that is a basis for firing her. It is a mess & not the soapy kind of mess we love so! 

Did anyone but me think that Thursday Sarah didn't have enough dialog? I swear she spent half the day mugging! Meanwhile Xander had way too many words!!

The only other thing is why Steve is keeping Kayla on some kind of "need to know" basis.

 

I honestly think if Holly had a better reason to be angry at Nicole her reactions would be at least understandable.  Obviously no one should speak to their mother like she did, but it makes it worse that Holly's hill to die on is going to prom.    Comparing her pretty decent childhood to Nicole's physical and sexual abusive one is just absolutely clueless.  I am glad the show is giving Holly some edge although at this point she is coming off bratty, vindictive, and petty.  A few scenes with Marlena didn't help her much IMO.  I don't find Holly very root able and I think Tate certainly deserves better.