Thread by @slack2thefuture

People are understandably confused about how Drew Barrymore could be scabbing against the WGA and not against SAG-AFTRA.

So let’s take this opportunity to increase our union literacy. 🧵

Unions are complicated. They come in all shapes and sizes and can operate in a variety of different ways.

For example, both the WGA and SAG-AFTRA are called “guilds” rather than unions because they represent independent contractors instead of employees.

Within one union, there can be different bargaining units. A bargaining unit is a group of workers who negotiate together.

The WGA has separate bargaining units for news writers and new media journalists. But all our film and TV writers are covered under a single bargaining unit that includes daytime soaps, game shows, and talk shows.

SAG-AFTRA has a number of separate bargaining units. For example, they have separate negotiations and contracts for Commercials, Broadcasting, and Video Games (which they’re presently taking a strike authorization vote about — give ‘em hell, Fran.)

So SAG-AFTRA has one contract (called Netcode) that covers soaps, game shows, and talk shows. This contract was last renegotiated in 2022 and is still in effect. SAG-AFTRA members working on these shows are not on strike under *this* contract. sagaftra.org/members-ratify…

But, as we all know, SAG-AFTRA members covered under their TV, Theatrical, and Streaming contract are very much on strike.

Adding to the potential confusion, many SAG-AFTRA members — like Drew Barrymore — are employed under multiple contracts.

If she does a TV ad for shampoo right now, that’s fine. SAG-AFTRA’s Commercial contract is in effect and members are not on strike.

If she tried to do a movie for Paramount right now, that’s not fine. SAG-AFTRA’s TV/Theatrical/Streaming contract is expired and they’re on strike.

So: Drew Barrymore’s talk show is covered under SAG-AFTRA’s Netcode contract — which is not on strike.

As long as she doesn’t promote any of her old movies on the show, she’s not violating SAG-AFTRA’s TV/Theatrical/Streaming strike.

However (and it’s a big however)…

The Drew Barrymore Show *is* covered under the WGA’s film and TV contract (which we call our MBA). So while Drew Barrymore is not a WGA member, her show employs WGA writers who are currently out on strike. directories.wga.org/project/120213…

While the opening monologues, jokes, and interviews on talk shows may seem spontaneous, a huge amount of writing work goes into every episode. (I mean, if it didn’t, does anyone really believe the studios would pay for writers they didn’t need?)

By going back on the air without her writers, Drew Barrymore is 100% ensuring that *someone* — either herself, one of her non-writing producers, or all of the above — will be doing the writing work that WGA writers normally do.

Which brings us to perhaps the most important term that every union member should know:

SCAB

Any worker who takes a striking worker's place on the job is called a SCAB.

So, by returning to work on her talk show, Drew Barrymore is not violating SAG-AFTRA’s strike rules. But if she goes through with this tomorrow, she will absolutely be violating the WGA’s strike rules — and those rules do apply to non-members. wgacontract2023.org/strike/strike-…

While it’s doubtful that Drew Barrymore cares about being banned from joining the WGA, it’s a safe bet she cares about her reputation. And I hope she cares about her writers.

It’d be heartbreaking to have someone you know and trust step in to take your job while you’re on strike

It’s not too late to do the right thing @DrewBarrymore. Yes, you’re contractually obligated, but you’re also Drew Barrymore. You have a lot of influence and power. You stood with the writers in the first weeks of our strike.

Stand with us now.
#WGAStrong

Correction: True to form, @adamconover reached out to “ruin” one thing in this thread, rightly pointing out that ACTUALLY writers and actors are classified as employees — not independent contractors. If we were classified as ICs, we would be ineligible to have a union at all.

That’s what laws like CA’s AB5 are about - making sure companies can’t unionbust by misclassifying employees as ICs.

And the unionbusting Prop 22 was about classifying drivers for Uber, Lyft, Doordash, etc. as ICs in order to make them ineligible for unionization.

The “guild” in our names doesn’t have any definitional difference under labor law. It may have been chosen because of an older meaning of the term.

@GrumpyGenXer @BenjaminGoggin

https://twitter.com/wgaeast/status/1701229656630768076