My expulsion VGA sends a cold message

8. August VGA announced that the director Chan-Vook Park And I was expelled from membership on our work on “Simpatizer”, at the HBO show that was in post-production during the strike. The claim was that we violated the rules of the rules with some of our work in the landscaping apartment. The announcement was accompanied by the accompanied state “Thank you at your service” in the inner jury that researched allegations. This was a strange gesture, given that the sting of the guild completely ignored the Jury’s recommendations.

Months after the strike was solved and our show was broadcast, VGA formed a court committee to investigate an anonymous complaint. The Committee’s job was to hear the evidence and I recommend VGA-TO, whether there was a violation of the strike and, if so, was that justified disciplinary measures. The jury is made up of VGA writer and they attended business seriously. The hearing lasted two exhausting days. It was comprehensively and complicated due to obvious, ambiguous overlaps between our roles as executive manufacturers / showrunner and in case of Chan-Vook – director, who was allowed to work and writers, who were not. None of the guys lead was there for the proceedings, only their lawyers.

In the end, five jurors issued the following recommendations. I quote them in the length to read them once:

“We find that respondents credentially showed that violations of strikes’ rules were not intentional …”

“We Also findy demonstrated that their violations Arose from misunderstandings about the lines Between their Roles as writers in post-production and their roles as executive-producers, editors, and directors, and that they believed themselves to be Complying in Good Faith with Strike Protocol … We Find That Their Violations Were Not The Product Of Intentional Obfuscation Or Deception … ”

“Based on the findings of facts and the above discussions, we recommend that the Committee issues confidential letter of censorship and respondents …”

It is obvious that the Board completely ignored all this. Instead of the lowest level of penalty, private letter, they gave us their highest expulsion. The penalty was intentionally undemocratic, intentional cruel and overdue load.

There are various theories why, in particular, they are targeted – but the decision intention is indisputable: there was a frightened tactic to intimidate its membership, especially “dashes” (Shovrunner-Director-writers).

It is sad that any CEH would consider such an action necessary or likely to be effective.

I am proud and long-term member of three other common share and fun guilds. I was consulted with them about politics statements and lobbies in their name in front of my country’s parliament. When I felt that my guilds strayed from his message, I visited them and they always listened and answered (without lawyers present). So I can say with some confidence that such tyrannical behavior is not endemically organized by labor delivery time. It is the problem of leadership. Usually, if the management of the guild is that the well-furnished members were unintentionally fighting with the rules, they would reconsider the rules. Rewrite them. They make them more vaguely and more realistic in favor of the whole membership.

It is not given justification why the VGA committee ignored its own jury in our case and it is difficult to think of one.

The most magnificent excuse with which I can think of is that the board remained parking that do not know how TV actually made and who, in their prosecutorial prosecutor’s office, made management forget. The theory is the same, but based on what I saw in the Tribunal, maybe it will be true of it. If so, let me remind them with respect:

You are writers. Guide the fellowship of the writers in solving the scriptures. Empathy and understanding are trade tools. Once in a while, lawyers give a day off.

Editor’s note: VGA issued the following answer.

The VGAs’s Constitution requests the Board of Directors – the management of VAGO members elected decision on the appropriate level of discipline for members who were found guilty of violation of the rules of strike violations. The court board composed of rank members and files found McKellara culprit to provide service writing during the strike, including the creative overhaul of pilot, which was rewriting a pilot story and writing dialogue. The Board found that the expulsion was an appropriate consequence of such a serious violation.

McKellar replied in the Union:

It is obvious that I complain this wrong with what happened (the claim that these editorial changes make writing for the affected company is stupid “to quote a jury), but I don’t want to review the case. “Rank and File”, as relate to the Committee, is VGA. I have read their division and strong letters of disagreement. They were proved to be conscientious, intelligent and by the way, good writers. Yes, the board has the power to oversect them, but why would they?