To the barricades, and write this dastardly wrong

MANY OF you will know that a writers' strike is due to begin inthe United States on 1 May, unless long and ill-tempered negotiationsbetween the Writers' Guild of America and TV and film bosses can beresolved in the next fortnight. What few of you will know, however,is that there is now a possibility of a writers' strike in Britain,thanks to an underhand, deceitful, arrogant and deeply treacherous -see what magnificent word- power writers have? - move by a cabal ofagents and the BBC.

It appears that these writers' agents, under the banner of anorganisation called PMA, decided to sideline the Writers' Guild ofGreat Britain by constructing a secret drama agreement directly withthe BBC, and then presenting this to the Writers' Guild as a faitaccompli. This conveniently ignores the fact that the Writers Guildis the only body empowered by writers to act on their behalf and thatit has been conducting these annual agreements with great diligencefor 43 years.

PMA is a new acronym to me - meaning what, Pass Money to Agents? -but is a limited company designed to "protect the function andprofessional interests of agents". It does not represent writers anddoesn't even allow them membership - not that we would ever dream ofstooping so low.

It should be said right away that agents and writers have alwayshad a problematic relationship. It is a psychological truth that theythink we get to keep 90 per cent of their earnings. We always thinkthey should get us not just more work, but better work, and higherfees for it. We see it as in their interest to get more money fortheir clients, but they tend to agree too quickly to deals in fear ofthem going elsewhere. All writers moan about changing agents, and allagents moan about their clients, usually for late delivery. Butbasically there is long-standing affection between the two parties.

However, from early soundings among fellow Writers' Guild members,I would guess that this rogue deal threatens not just thisrelationship but also the one between writers and BBC. "How couldthey?" are the most printable words I've heard on the subject.

What makes it so bizarre is that the Writers' Guild, althoughaffiliated to the TUC, is hardly a bastion of revolutionary fervour.It is, as they say, a broad church, and has carefully constructed awriters' pension scheme, an annual scale of minimum fees, and minorluxuries such as a writer's "attendance allowance" when he or shegoes to a read-through of their work. No stones were thrown orbuildings burnt, and you are unlikely ever to see us march under abanner reading "The Writers United Will Never Be Defeated".

Which isn't to say that the Guild is without principle - it hasopposed censorship, and campaigned against the repression thatwriters suffer in less tolerant countries. So what this betrayal byagents is almost certainly about is, to borrow from Robert Towne'sscript of Chinatown, "the future, Mr Gittes, the future".

Broadcasters are salivating at the potentially endless revenuefrom programme sales to digital, satellite and internet channels. Butthey hate paying writers royalties for usage. A typical contract askswriters to sign away "moral rights" and to accept just one fee "forall known universes and media hitherto or yet to be invented". Godcomplex, or what?

Equally, agents now see themselves as "executive producers". Theywant to "package" deals, take a share of production fees, and gettheir names on the credits. Their ambition and the BBC's greed havecombined to create this provocation. So watch out as we writers taketo the streets in our cardigans and baggy corduroy trousers. And ifyou want to know what a writers' strike might be like - just turn thesound down on your television.

stanhey@aol.com