On August 8th, WGA announced that Director Park Chan Wook and I had been expelled from membership in the work of “The Sommitizer,” an HBO show that was in post-production during the strike. The claim was that some of his jobs in the editorial suite violated strike rules. The announcement was accompanied by a proud “thank you for your service” to the internal ju apprentice who investigated the allegations. This was a strange gesture considering the guild board completely ignored the juice recommendation.
A few months after the strike was resolved and our show aired, the WGA established a court committee to investigate anonymous complaints. The committee’s job was to hear evidence and make recommendations to the WGA’s board of directors as to whether a strike violation occurred and whether the disciplinary action was justified. The ju judges were made up of WGA writers, who took their work seriously. The hearing lasted for two days. It was comprehensive and complicated due to the obvious and vague overlap between our role as executive producer/showrunners and our role as directors who were permitted to work and writers who were not. No one in the guild leadership was there for the case, only their lawyers.
In the end, five ju apprentices issued the following recommendation: I quote them at length for the board of directors.
“We found that respondents demonstrated that they can trust that their strike rules violations were not intentional…”
“We found that respondents have demonstrated that misunderstandings about the boundaries between their roles as post-production writers and as executive producers, editors and directors have led to violations and that they can trust that they believe they will follow strike protocols in good faith.
“Based on the above facts and the outcome of the discussion, it is recommended that the board issue a secret condemnation letter to both respondents…”
Obviously, the board ignored all of this completely. Instead of private letters, which is the lowest level of punishment, they gave us the highest expulsion. The verdict was intentionally undemocratic, intentionally cruel and excessive.
There are various theories about why we were targeted in particular, but the intent behind the decision cannot be denied. It was a scary tactic to threaten their members, especially the “hyphens” (showrunner director writers).
Guilds sadden them to think that such actions are likely to be necessary or effective.
I am a proud longtime member of the other three entertainment industry unions and guilds. I consulted them about the policy statement and lobbyed on their behalf in front of my country’s parliament. When I felt my guild was wandering out of their messages, I reached out to them and they always listened and responded (even without a lawyer). So, we can say with confidence that this kind of tyrannical behavior is not inherent to systemic labor. It’s a matter of leadership. Usually, if a guild leader hears that an intentional member is unintentionally struggling with the rules, they will reconsider the rules. Rewrite them. Make them obscure and more realistic for the benefit of the entire membership.
In our case, no justification is given for why the WGA committee ignored its juice, and it is difficult to think about it.
The most generous excuse I can think of is that the board was steamed by a lawyer who knows nothing about how television is actually made. The theory is that stretch, but based on what I saw in court, there may be some truth to it. If so, I would like to remind them with respect:
You are a writer. You lead a writer’s fellowship in solving writer’s problems. Empathy and understanding are tools of trade. Sometimes, give your lawyer a break.
Editor’s Note: The WGA has issued the following response:
The WGAW Constitution requires that the board of directors (a leadership body elected by WGAW members) decide on the appropriate level of discipline for members convicted of violating strike rules. A court committee consisting of rank and file members found McKeller was convicted of providing writing services during a strike. This includes rewriting the pilot story and creative overhauling the pilot, which is equivalent to writing dialogue. The Board has determined that the expulsion is an appropriate consequence of such a serious violation.
McKeller responded to the union:
Obviously, I disagree with this false characteristic of what happened (“the argument that these editorial changes, writing for the company that was hit is ridiculous, is to cite one ju-degree voting), but I don’t want to trust the case. The “rank and file” referring to the committee is WGA. I read their division decisions and letters of their energetic opponents. They prove themselves to be conscientious, intelligent and, by the way, a good writer. Yes, the board has the power to overturn them, but why should they?
