Due to time constraints, not all questions asked on Candidates Night were posed to the candidates. Candidates have the opportunity to answer any questions they choose, and those answers will be posted to the WGAW Election page. Until that happens, you can read the questions and my answers below.
Please note, there were many questions that centered around similar issues (particularly around inclusion, workplace accountability, and free work), just with different wordings.
Q: I'm a lower level writer and have been told by agents and other writers that becoming a staff writer is virtually impossible now (even pre-pandemic). That all budgets are spent on upper level writers, especially with smaller rooms. How would you combat the hurdles to allow new writers to break in?
A: I’ve heard this as well. I wish I had a perfect answer that would get you staffed easily, but staffing is never easy. Instead, I have a story. I’m a queer writer who was forced to repeat at Staff Writer. Even after selling pilots, I still find myself “competing” with support staff looking for their boss to promote them… which is how I got my first staff job and admission to the WGA. If I were that showrunner, I would promote that assistant or script coordinator. Yeah, I just cost myself a theoretical job. But given shrinking rooms, and how so many mini-rooms do fill up with upper-level writers because until there’s a production order a CoEP costs the same as a Story Editor, you’re not wrong to feel what you’re feeling, especially if you've been stuck at the low level for a while.
Here’s the good news: while hoping someone in your circle sells a show and is able to staff you in their room, you can still break into TV via development, as a creator. This has literally been my life the last few years. It is not a consistent paycheck. In fact, there is often not a paycheck involved. I’m hoping to help change that. But streamers and networks are increasingly looking for new voices with fresh, authentic, unique stories, worlds, and characters. Get comfortable with pitching (hot tip: so long as it’s over Zoom, you can have your conversational, but prepared script on your computer screen and it will look like you’ve got it memorized). Soon, you’re going to be the one having to figure out to manage your room budget. And, at that point, remember this moment and pledge to staff a balanced room, including new staff writers. Be the change.
Q: Free work, both for feature writers and TV writers developing, is endemic. How do we address this? Is paid pitching something we could get?
A: Free work is an incredibly complicated, nuanced issue in both TV and film. While I think it would be politically prudent to say “yes! Let’s eliminate all free work!” I think that’s unrealistic and would have some negative downstream consequences particularly for less established TV writers like me who need development to survive while not on staff. Less established writers are a harder sell than bigger names, so if a producer had to pay you to develop or for a pitch, my worry is that producers will stop hearing original pitches from less established writers completely. And there goes my career! This is doubly true for independent producers who aren't in studio deals, and so have the ability to sell anywhere, despite our industry's rampant vertical integration. I don't want these producers priced out of the business.
That said, my leniency in TV stops in two places. First is OWAs. When a writer does not control an idea, and so cannot take their work product with them, they must be paid for their time. Second is once a studio gets involved. I want to completely banish the “if/come” deal. No other worker in this town is expected to sign a deal where they do the work but are paid nothing unless a network buys it. It’s just writers. Sorry, studios. You need to respect our time, our work, and take on a little risk here. Especially for less established writers, we're really not talking about blowing your development budget.
In Features, my opinion on OWAs carries over. If it’s not your idea, and you can’t take it with you, you need to get paid for your time. Before any writer pitches on an OWA, I think they should know there’s actual money, real intention to hire a writer not just hear takes, and that the rights are secure. The way I hope we could guarantee this is through, essentially, an OWA escrow account. If the producer won’t set a nominal amount of money aside to prove they’re serious about hiring someone, which would be returned to them if they don’t hire anyone, maybe you shouldn’t waste your time developing your take. We’re never going to fully eliminate the free work it takes to “win” an OWA. But in addition to the above, I think a place to start establishing paid pitches is to set a pitch fee trigger for bake-offs of more than, say, 5 writers. I do, however, believe paid pitches is likely an MBA issue.
Q: What would you do to improve things for feature writers? (eliminating free work, one-step deals, etc.)
A: I’ve answered the free work aspect of this in a different question. A way to improve things for feature writers outside the MBA is about pay schedule. Talk to whoever is negotiating your deal and get them to push for something that isn’t 50% commencement and 50% delivery… because we all know that in a one-step deal, which so many are (and I believe this is an MBA issue), “delivery” is a carrot dangled in front of your face, but out of reach, until you’ve actually written multiple drafts. Have your lawyer to push for more upfront, for paid intermediary steps (i.e. an outline). It is standard in TV pilot deals to be paid 20% for your outline… why not in features? An alternative is to ask to be paid weekly, instead of by delivery. Many feature deals include a timeframe. If that’s the case, then a producer should easily be able to divide up your payment accordingly. Both of these are ways that you and your rep can, on an individual deal level, make it so less of your money is being withheld for one last round of free notes.
Q: Showrunners are bosses. It was clear in the agency fight that sometimes bosses have different interests than workers. How would you deal with that inherent inequity in our union?
A: In TV we say “writers hire writers.” Many of my plans and proposals in TV are geared around showrunners, and asking them to use the power their ability to hire grants them for the benefit of their fellow Guild members. There are some things we, as a labor union, cannot demand of our members… but we can certainly ask. I do feel the Guild has been too hands-off in asking showrunners to step up for Guild members outside of being weighty figures in collective actions and negotiations. While we may not be able to make “demands,” we can certainly establish best practices. Things like “your first hire should be inclusive,” and “actually list your room as Open to Submissions on the Staffing Submission System, because very few of you are doing it.” I would also like to direct more resources to the Showrunner Training Program, because managerial training is an absolute must, but 25 showrunners trained per year does not cut the mustard in the era of Peak TV.
Q: What will you do to make yourself accessible and your efforts and actions transparent if you are elected?
A: You can @ me on Twitter! I’m @robsforman, and I am not known for being an undersharer. If you want to look at my quarantine baking and tell me to stop eating carbs, you can use that same handle on Instagram. Board members have email addresses that are easily found on the Guild website, so if elected, you can reach me there. As far as communicating actions and efforts, I have a marketing background. While I don’t want to inundate membership with emails that say nothing, I do believe updates about things the Board is in the process of tackling would be welcome because, in their absence, there is often an assumption that nothing is being done… which is generally not the case. Further, I believe the WGA can be more aggressive in its press strategy regarding a variety of issues, and wage certain wars (inclusion, free work) in the court of public opinion rather than just every three years in MBA talks.
Q: Would you support imposing penalties on WGA members who discriminate against other members, especially showrunners and upper levels who harass and bully underrepresented writers?
A: I do not condone discrimination or bullying or harassment of any kind, but the Guild is a labor union and so is legally required in this case to represent the interests of both the bully and the bullied. Before we get into penalties, and I don’t know if the question is implying financial penalties or Article X disciplinary action, I believe we need to make a mandatory attempt at sensitivity training. I would rather reform someone than expel them. But this gets to another issue, which is reporting discrimination, bullying, and harassment. I am a proponent of establishing an independent third party, anonymous reporting system so that studio HR departments can no longer shield WGA members who may be making them money, but are behaving abhorrently. If the studios and the WGA are both receiving these reports, then I hope we could trust issues would not be buried.
Q: What do you plan to do as a board member to build bridges with underrepresented writers?
A: I am the only queer candidate in this race. I’m also a cisgendered, white, able-bodied man, and have a lot of privilege. It is my responsibility to use it to fight for my community and for underrepresented writers from other groups. I did not wait to be a Board member to take action; I co-founded The Rainbow Pages, a grassroots list of LGBTQ+ WGA writers that was established in the wake of the agency action. I believe I have endorsements from members of every Inclusion & Equity committee, including several chairs, co-chairs, and vice chairs. I would encourage every underrepresented writer to attend committee meetings of their community. In addition, one of my key plans is to establish the practice of showrunners hiring inclusively with their first hire, thus ensuring underrepresented writers a place of power on any staff, and by virtue of that improving room culture for lower level underrepresented writers.
Q: What can we do to increase the number of freelance episodes given in television in this era of short seasons?
A: I got my start with a freelance script on a show where I was the writers assistant. It went well, and I was promoted to staff writer the following season. We need to bring the freelance script back, if for no other reason than to on-board the next generation of WGA members, our support staff. So, what can we do? Well, we can do more than the minimum. When we negotiate our pay, we push for more than the minimums set forth in the MBA… the minimum set forth in the MBA for freelance scripts on streaming shows is "zero." Now, this is complicated, as many upper level writers are hired with a stipulation that they are assigned one or two scripts. On an eight- or ten-episode season, that has often meant low-level writers on staff aren’t assigned a script. I won’t lie, the math is hard. The solution here might be hiring a less top-heavy room. Or, a truly magnanimous showrunner — like the one who gave me my shot — might not take credit on one episode in order to give an assistant or script coordinator a chance. It’s hard to voluntarily take money out of your own pocket, but believe me, that kind of action pays dividends in karma and reputation and morale among your writers and your support staff.
Q: Speaking of the Captain system, it's a bit ad hoc and disorganized. At one point I had three Captains while other people I know had none. We need to formalize a structure to make sure every member is covered. Has there been talk about making this change?
A: I’m a Captain, but I understand this frustration. I have members on my team who are on other Captains’ teams, as well, often because they remained on another Captain's list despite moving on from a show. Frankly, it helps keep me honest with my communications. I see two ways to address what feels like disorganization. First, the Guild should know when any room, including mini-rooms, start based on contracts. During that first week, the Organizing Department should establish who is the Show Captain. This doesn’t cover Feature writers, though. So, an additional and holistic solution may be for the Organizing Department to assign all new members to existing Captains prior to orientation meetings, and confirm with new members that their Captain has reached out to them.
Q: Along with the concrete steps mentioned for inclusion and equity in TV, what concrete steps would you specifically take to improve inclusion and equity for feature writers of color, women, LGBTQ? The numbers in features are even more dire than in TV, and the folks doing hiring aren't usually WGA.
A: I’ve answered the TV side of this elsewhere, but I want to specifically address the Feature side here. In TV, we say “writers hire writers.” That isn’t the case in Features, generally. So, this is an external outreach issue: pressuring producers, studios, and managers directly, but also going to the press. I believe the WGA has been too passive in its press strategy, specifically on inclusion in Features. The fact is, in MBA negotiations the studios summarily dismiss the Rooney Rule, where they simply need to interview (not even hire) at least one non-white writer for OWAs. It is a zero-cost proposal! I’m not surprised industry trades won’t cover this, given the trades’ bias towards the studios, who buy advertising space. So, we need to go to non-industry press and ramp up public pressure on this. The same rule ought to apply to female Feature writers, LGBTQ+ writers, writers over 55, and writers with disabilities: all five underrepresented categories recognized by the WGA.
Q: Everyone seems to agree we fell short in the MBA negotiation. Do we have to strike to do better next time and how will you start to prepare the Guild for the next negotiation now?
A: I don’t believe we necessarily need to strike. However, there is incredible leverage in rattling the sabers with a strike threat, including taking an authorization vote that receives support from a huge percentage of the membership, like in 2017. Given how many issues were swept aside by COVID-19, and how those issues will be compounded over the next three years thanks to going unaddressed this year… I believe it is in our best interest to internalize that an authorization vote may be an inevitability in 2023, and to start building broad consensus over key, ignored issues, including: Features, teams, comedy/variety, free work, inclusion, and mini-rooms.
