I spent part of the holiday vacation following everything that was being written about the major paradigm shift for authors following the actions of the Union of Quebec Writers and Writers (UNEQ). Basically, we want to puncture members 2.5% of their annual income (5% for non-members, many) as union dues. In exchange of what ? After reading the UNEQ newsletters, the words of its president on the website, the articles, editorials and opinion letters published in the media, I cannot identify the concrete plan. Do like the Union des artistes or the Society of Radio, Television and Cinema Authors and force the people who hire its members to contribute to a pension fund and a group insurance plan? Establish minimum fees that must be respected? Create a union that will fight when a contract does not respect the new established rules? And if the plan includes all of these proposals, how does UNEQ intend to enforce them?
If the Union wants to convince its members to support it in this revolution, clearer and more unifying communication is essential. For the moment, the criticisms fuse, even on the part of authors who would have the most to gain from it. Several successful writers, those whose contributions would necessarily be the highest, oppose it. The same goes for some publishers who, I assume, would have to pay an additional portion of their income to fund these benefits. Their megaphones are powerful, and they don’t hesitate to use them.
Many more modestly successful authors remain undecided about the situation. The question of remuneration is always present and sensitive when one is a writer. In the long run, it wears out. An author generally receives 10% of the price of his book. This is the norm in publishing contracts, but some collect much less, which is very little when you are at the very heart of the book chain. Normal that we do not want to give up a share of this frugal cake to a union association without knowing concretely what we will get in return.
I consider myself a “soft” member of UNEQ. I renew my membership every year for a self-serving reason: the Program speak to me of a language which allows CEGEP professors to receive writers in class. When you are a member and the meeting takes place within the framework of this program, you are much better paid than when the CEGEP itself finances it. I also appreciated the sponsorship experience orchestrated by UNEQ, which trains mentor-writer duos at the start of their careers, and the adequate remuneration to match. Sometimes I refer to the fee schedule suggested by the Union. Because we are regularly invited to meetings in book fairs, libraries, schools, with great enthusiasm, but neglecting the cachet, under the pretext that writing is a passion and that our mission is to transmit it. The UNEQ fee schedule gives us some leverage, but does not have the force of law. Could this recurring problem of variable fees finally be resolved?
I consider that there are still too many blind spots to stick to one position, but I come to a few conclusions: the UNEQ must continue to improve its communications plan to reach writers more effectively, in particular non-members — this is their responsibility. To be able to move forward with a free hand, it needs massive support from the actors in its community, otherwise it is going straight into a wall.
For our part, the authors, let us inform ourselves — it is our duty. Let us concretely express our needs and our fears to enable our Union to better understand and represent us. We may need, at one stage, to trust.
One thing is certain: defusing the explosiveness of a situation whose consequences promise to be painful if nothing changes is urgent. Let’s stay united, curious about the opinion of others, respectful towards those who fight for us. We have a lot to gain and perhaps even the opportunity to write together a page of Quebec literary history.