WGA pickets new Tyler Perry studio after controversial firings of four writers
by
(Terence Long/WGAW)The WGA lobbed a grenade at Tyler Perry near the tail end of last week, accusing his production house of firing several union writers in retaliation for them trying to bring the show under a union contract. It goes without saying that Perry denied firing them because they were trying to unionize, since doing so is against the law, opting instead to say that the writers were fired because they aren't very good writers.
According to a letter sent out by Patric Verrone, the four writers in question were warned that they should "be careful about pushing the WGA deal or you could be replaced."
If those statements can be proven -- and they probably can't be (but that doesn't mean the WGA can't win this with the NLRB) -- it would pretty much drop the legal hammer on Perry. I don't see the value in inventing threats of this sort and given the success of the show in question, it seems unlikely that these writers were fired for cause. I'm not personally familar with House of Payne, other than to say that its ratings have been pretty darn good for TBS which really deflates Perry's argument that the writers weren't pulling their weight.
To the contrary, it paints a pretty clear picture of a guy that not only doesn't care about his own writing staff, but also flaunts the law as if it doesn't apply to him.
Verrone's response to the firings was to organize a picket at the opening of Perry's new studio, which kind of begs the question, what kind of person fires his writers for trying to unionize right before he opens a shiny new studio instead of afterward? Stupid is not shy and apparently his name is Tyler Perry.
Nikke Finke has the full WGA statement on the firings and the picket plans (which have now come to pass) along with pictures of the protest. The re-use of the WGA strike signs from earlier this year was a nice touch, don't you think? I like the message it sends, that writers aren't going to let up and let themselves be pushed around now that they've gotten a new contract.
With SAG ready to call for a strike authorization vote perhaps any day now, it's also a bit galling to hear that Will Smith attended the event which means he crossed the WGA picket line. If SAG does end up on strike this year, I imagine a great number of writers will, when possible, join the picket lines in solidarity just as many actors did during the WGA strike. Writers owe SAG a lot for their support and both unions are clearly stronger when they work together and support each other, so yeah, it's sad to see a big name like Will Smith cross a picket line on the eve of a possible SAG walkout.
It doesn't send a real great message, does it?
Finke also has a letter signed by a lot of influential talent in the WGA sent to Perry. Of the names on the list, one of several that stand out is Matthew Weiner, who just won an Emmy for his writing on Mad Men, which just won an Emmy for Outstanding Drama. That's a lot of new weight being thrown behind the cause. Shonda Rhimes, showrunner of Grey's Anatomy, is also on there, which is a pretty big deal. Maybe not to TBS, but Perry it really ought to mean something. These people's words carry weight and the WGA is in a strong position to shut that show down by keeping union writers away if there isn't a union contract.
Bill Lawrence for Scrubs signed his name, as did Marc Cherry for Desperate Housewives, Tina Fey is always going to be there because she's Tina-feaking-Fey, and there are some WGA board members in there as well.
Not that letters are going to make any difference, but still, it's extra crap on the pile and eventually some of that stink is going to get on Perry's previously solid reputation. Oddly, House of Payne is covered by SAG and the DGA, just not the WGA.
What's that all about?
October 6, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply
October 12, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply
November 10, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply
http://sistastalking-tylerperry.sampasite.com/favorites-2-1/Movies-Sites-Blogs/TYLER-PERRY-EXCLUSIVE.htm
November 10, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply
That's illegal regardless of whether he thought it was right or not.
Moreover, that "interview" was one giant softball by a fan of Perry's. It wasn't impartial nor did Ro ask a single relevant question. She basically sat there and said "here's a podium to give us your side of it" and then she said goodnight.
Perry may be extremely talented and accomplished, but the man is an anti-union thug that's going to find himself on the wrong end of the law. No amount of softball interviews will fix that.
November 10, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply
...WRONG! What you don't know about "Ro" is that she got the writers' account 'first'! The interview with Tyler was in response to the writers' answers:
http://sistastalking-tylerperry.sampasite.com/favorites-2-1/Movies-Sites-Blogs/From-The-Tyler-Perry-Writers-by.htm
November 10, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply
That's an open-mic "say whatever you want" question that I'd expect from a two-bit newsman with a single camera guy, chasing somebody down the street. There is no journalistic value to it at all which was revealed exceptionally well by the no-value answer that Perry gave in response.
"One question, that the readers are asking, is why wouldn't someone in your financial position, at the very least, provide the writers with health care insurance?"
Not a terrible question but also not really the point either. The WGA got involved after the writers tried to organize and Perry fired them. Whether he could afford it personally or professionally isn't directly related to him firing writers who were trying to bring the show under a WGA contract.
Moreover, Perry's show is one of the most successful for the network it airs on -- if not the most successful -- and the man just built and opened a brand new studio. I have a very hard time believing that he couldn't afford a WGA contract, but could afford to build a brand new studio.
"Did you ever promise the writers benefits, residuals, or union contracts once the show took off?"
This is obviously a point of contention. The writers said he did, he says he didn't. That's the one good question of the bunch, but also not actually related to the issue at hand.
"Can you address the accusations that you are racist, and also the rumors that you replaced the four black writers with white writers?"
This is the definition of a softball question. There were never any such rumors and it is wholly unrelated to reason for the firings.
"I came across an article today that said your workers are forced to call you Mr. Perry."
I'm not even going to address this, that question is an embarrassing joke.
And not-so-shockingly, that's it.
Not one question about whether the writers had expressed their interest in organizing, or if he had made any statements to them about it. No questions about how he could afford to build and open a new studio, but not afford a union contract for his writers. No questions about how he can afford union contracts for directors and actors, but not writers.
It was perfunctory and pointless.
November 11, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply
You scream that Yolanda's interview was not "impartial". However, anyone who reads 'your' story and comments here, can plainly see that you are pro-writers. I can respect Yolanda because she at least gives a voice to both sides. What have 'you' done?
And what is up with your intellectually constipated views on this interview (lol):
Open-mic: According to Tyler, certain aspect of the case couldn't be discussed; the case is still pending and a deal has yet to be reached. Therefore the open-mic was a logical course.
Softball/racist question: Maybe you should first read up on the stories you print because there were absolutely rumors that the fired writers had been replaced with white writers. And furthermore, those rumors were probably started by the fired writers, along with the "Diva ego" rumors that Tyler requires his workers to call him "Mr. Perry".
Whatever you think of this interview, the public, myself included, is responding positively to it; and I think that really gets your goat.
Well, I won't bother with responding to any further comments...wasn't my intention to go there with you. I thought someone in your position would be more professional about the whole thing.
later...
November 11, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply
What I do is not relevant.
Giving both sides a voice is the job of a stenographer, frankly, anybody can do that. The guy selling papers on the street can do that. Where's the value in letting each side say whatever it wants without challenging them, without finding and reporting the truth?
What she did wasn't commentary (what I do) and it wasn't reporting (what a journalist might do), it was literally double-sided PR.
He seemed to have little trouble explaining the parts of it that benefited him, while remaining silent on the parts that make him look bad.
That tends to happen when you throw softballs.
I haven't written anything on these rumors (typically because rumors are not worth writing about) because I haven't seen any. Feel free to point them out and then explain why anyone in the media should pay any attention to unsubstantiated rumors in the first place.
Or should I just accept them as fact and then report them as facts?
No offense, but I haven't the slightest clue who you are, and I'd never seen the "interview" before, either. I think generally that says a lot more than I could about the value of it.
I'm always happy to disappoint, please come back anytime.