Tonight SAG distributed this email to members tonight about the status of the contrat negotiations with the AMPTP. It’s interesting to note that today, August 15th, was the deadline set by the AMPTP for SAG to ratify the June 30th TV/Theatrical proposal in order or the deal to be retroactive to July 1st. I was expecting some sort of announcement all day from the AMPTP about this — but nothing. As the SAG email explained, “This is a standard response by management in labor negotiations. They hope this threat will stampede our membership to take a bad deal. The risk that actors may not receive increases retroactively is more than offset by the long-term damage that would result from a premature deal that eliminates residuals for work done for new media and reused on new media, or from allowing signatory producers to produce non-union.” Here’s the email in its entiety:
August 15, 2008
CONTRACT 2008 UPDATE
Discussions Continue
SAG negotiators and industry representatives continue to have informal discussions regarding a successor TV/Theatrical agreement. It is not at all unusual for both parties in large negotiations like ours to meet in smaller more manageable groups to talk about remaining outstanding issues in an effort to reach accord. SAG and AMPTP full committees (which combined number over 100 people) will meet face-to-face again when we have reached a deal and shake hands across the table. We are all hopeful that will happen soon.Your negotiating team remains committed to opposing the AMPTP’s proposals to produce original made for new media productions non-union, with no residuals.
The SAG national board of directors unanimously endorsed these core principles in its motion on July 26:
“It is a core principle of Screen Actors Guild—
“That no non-union work shall be authorized to be done under any SAG agreement and;
“That all work done under a Screen Actors Guild contract, regardless of budget level, shall receive fair compensation when reused.”
We believe that the majority of the other issues have been resolved. Screen Actors Guild has made significant compromises to reach tentative agreement on the resolved issues. We also believe that what we are asking for, to close the gap and make this deal, is extremely reasonable and addresses the actual needs of actors and their families in these times of technological advances and economic challenges.
Your national negotiating committee met on Wednesday, August 13 for an update from the president and national executive director regarding informal meetings and discussions with the industry, and to discuss SAG’s options and next steps.
Expired Contract Still in Effect
Despite what you may read on some blogs, the expired TV/Theatrical contract remains in effect. You should continue auditioning and accepting employment under the expired agreement. If you or your agent have any questions, or believe the terms and conditions of the contract are being violated, please call the national contract department at (323) 549-6818. We will take action to protect your rights.
Signed SAG Guaranteed Completion Contracts (GCC) Soar to over 600
To date, 658 projects have been signed by non-AMPTP producers (AMPTP producers are not eligible to sign GCCs). The GCC agreements incorporate the terms of the current SAG theatrical agreement, and terms of any agreement reached by SAG and the AMPTP retroactively, thus allowing companies not affiliated with the AMPTP to begin motion pictures without the fear of interruption by a work stoppage. The total number of SAG covered feature films in 2007, not including ultra low budget and student films, was 1,296. Using that number as a baseline, over half the potential number of films this year have the green light to continue shooting to completion under SAG GCC agreements, no matter what happens in contract negotiations. Remember, these are NOT WAIVERS, but actual contracts.August 15 AMPTP “Deadline”
The AMPTP has stated that SAG must ratify the AMPTP’s June 30 proposal by August 15 for the deal to be retroactive, threatening not to agree to apply economic improvements in the new TV/Theatrical contract when the deal is done, retroactively to July 1, 2008. This is a standard response by management in labor negotiations. They hope this threat will stampede our membership to take a bad deal. The risk that actors may not receive increases retroactively is more than offset by the long-term damage that would result from a premature deal that eliminates residuals for work done for new media and reused on new media, or from allowing signatory producers to produce non-union.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.







Sad to say but…that guy “Playmaker” is actually right.
The most successful stuff on the web is user-generated, freely given, no compensation required. Why? Because it fits the medium in every respect. The idea that the internet is going to be the next TV is tomfoolery. The Internet is not tomorrow’s technology, it’s yesterday’s technology.
As for the WB, I’d like the see what that bottom line is really like, or what their real justification is for putting the network online…I’m not holding my breath…
Major studios have created small, barely funded divisions to create online content. But, and believe me I know, they do not expect these divisions to even pay for themselves much less generate anything vaguely resembling a significant profit. They are there more as a marketing tool and talent incubator. If they become even more expensive because of guild regulation…? They will simply do less or shut themselves down. Why bother?
SAG has made it more profitable to make Reality shows than scripted. That’s a fact. They’re not the first guild or union in history to use their leverage to negotiate themselves out of a job… And I don’t know, maybe it’s worth it to them. Hard to say.
But if this is really about the internet then y’all are wasting your time.
Re: above, by “just pointing this out”…
More mis/disinformation. If you’re going to shill for the AMPTP you should admit who you are and whom you’re writing for.
You wrote: The most successful stuff on the web is user-generated, freely given, no compensation required. Why? Because it fits the medium in every respect.
I don’t know what your definition of “successful” is, but successful by producers’ standards is profit-related. Perhaps you meant “the most popular” or “the most clicked-on”, etc. Quantity, not quality. And yes, most of that content is freely given with no compensation. Nor should it be. About 99% of it is crap that no one would pay for – ergo it’s free. No one in the AMPTP nor SAG is interested in the multitude of free crap on the web. If it makes money, the media moguls will be interested.
The idea that the internet is going to be the next TV is tomfoolery. The Internet is not tomorrow’s technology, it’s yesterday’s technology.
The internet is current technology and constantly evolving, but that’s not the point. As it applies to marketing for profit, it’s a huge and endless corridor. The USAGE of the internet as a marketing tool is the point. (Did you just use the word “tomfoolery”? Sheesh…)
As for the WB, I’d like the see what that bottom line is really like, or what their real justification is for putting the network online…I’m not holding my breath…
Their justification is that they can’t sell advertising for their crappy shows on television so they’re trying to evolve. AFTRA negotiated a discounted contract with WB in the past, which is still (for some unknown reason) in effect. But guess what? On the internet, WB producers won’t have to pay AFTRA UNION actors for new content under the new/current AFTRA contract. Swell, huh?
Major studios have created small, barely funded divisions to create online content.
This is where my “shill” comment comes in. Major studios (like the WB example above) are trying to evolve with the new marketplace. As they should. Fine. Whatever you’re calling “small” and “barely funded” is also crap. MILLIONS of dollars are being spent on internet market development. That may be small change in relation to what the “Spider-Man” franchise, the “Pirates” franchise, the “Harry Potter” franchise, “Two and a half Men”, “Desperate Housewives”, etc are bringing in, but it’s definitely NOT small change.
But, and believe me I know, they do not expect these divisions to even pay for themselves much less generate anything vaguely resembling a significant profit.
What are you smoking? Of COURSE they expect them to generate profit – they already ARE generating millions in ad revenue and that figure is growing every day. SAG has posted a marketing research study (independently produced, IIRC) that shows these numbers. You’re either ignorant, or a liar.
And how do you “know” anything about what these companies expect online? Producer (AMPTP) insider, are you?
They are there more as a marketing tool and talent incubator.
SAG doesn’t do “talent incubator”. SAG is a body of talented, experienced and professional ACTORS. There is a SAG experimental film (and TV show?) contract available for producers of such projects.
If they become even more expensive because of guild regulation…? They will simply do less or shut themselves down. Why bother?
Why bother? Because the public at large wants true entertainment. Professionals in the entertainment industry know how to provide it. And good entertainment is expensive, no argument there. But it isn’t SAG (alone) that’s pushing production costs up.
SAG has made it more profitable to make Reality shows than scripted. That’s a fact.
Wrong again, bucko. So-called “reality shows” have allowed producers to make more money by not paying actors and writers ANYTHING for their talent and time. “More profitable” is a combination of less cost, and/or higher ad revenue (in this case) resulting in a larger ROI. This is what any company does or attempts to do. By doing an end-around actors and writers, producers have found that they can keep more money in their loaded pockets. Simply calling a scripted show a “reality show” is a loophole that allows them to do this, even though they’re AMPTP members. The current rash/trend of reality shows is nothing more than watching (choreographed) monkeys in a cage throwing shit at each other and masturbating. And as long as producers can make money selling tickets to the zoo without having to pay the monkeys, they will.
They’re not the first guild or union in history to use their leverage to negotiate themselves out of a job… And I don’t know, maybe it’s worth it to them. Hard to say.
Don’t know if this history is true or not but this isn’t SAG’s future. Nice try.
But if this is really about the internet then y’all are wasting your time.
Yeah, I guess this interweb thingy will go the way of the ATARI. It’s all a bunch of tomfoolery.
Producers are crying poor (and using mouthpieces like you) to perpetuate this myth. Again, all SAG is asking – “demanding”, in fact – is that actors are paid when AMPTP producers make a PROFIT. Producers are already allowed to show ad-supported, profit-generating television shows online (for over two weeks!) without having to pay actors ONE CENT. We’re only asking for decent base salary/pay for work done – just like anybody else involved in a production (grips, teamsters, caterers, writers, PAs, the plethora of under-producers, etc). When that work is shown over and over again for producer profit, it’s fair that all artists get paid a small portion of that profit. That’s the way it works and that’s how producers keep talented people creating their art.
When producers hire non-professional on-camera “talent” they get… well… they get “The Kardashians” and “Tia Tequila”. No shame, just profit.
And THAT’S what the AMPTP is standing for.
Wow Ace…you’re angry. Congrats on the emotion. It’s fun to be angry!
And worth noting, the weakest possible arguments you ever hear on this posting board begin with accusing someone of being a shill for the AMPTP or SAG or AFTRA or DGA…
Which you are obviously not since your arguments are too unintelligible….
The point of pointing out that the free stuff is the most successful is to point out that professional actors are not particularly necessary to “do well” on the internet. Yes, it’s possible that they could be…but so far it’s been peanuts. Or zip. So to get yourself in a tizzy over it seems a waste.
You’re absolutely right about the promo value of the internet. That is, the internet is used to get someone to watch something else….movies or televison…where producers and studios and networks can actually make money.
I’m not sure what your argument is about the WB… I’m just pointing out that most people can’t quite figure out what the overall game is with putting a network online. Yes, as you point out, you can pay everyone less. But you also make far, far, FAR less revenue. And I’m not sure anyone wants to go online to watch crappy original television shows when they can turn on the television and get better crap in both content and technology. Maybe it’ll make a fortune…I would like everyone to be happy…but please, do you really think so? I think they have another endgame with the thing and I don’t think it’s about profits…since I’m not a shill for either the AMPTP or the WB I don’t know what it is…maybe they plan to eventually re-launch the WB as a cable network and this is a testing phase.
Yes, someone is always making money in this industry. This is a good thing. And despite reality television people still want quality. So there will always be work for SAG if they can figure out how to make a contract.
My only point is that Guilds (and some really do think in this kind of far reaching way) need to work not only for their members short term interest, but for the long term interest of the industry itself. But SAG has become so bipolar and self-involved that this kind of discussion has become impossible for them. This negotiation has exposed, if nothing else, SAG’s incompetance and narcissism. Maybe this has something to do with SAG’s vicious rates of unemployment…hard to say.
But what the hell…may everything you say be true about how much money there is to make off the internet. Why not? More money is good.
Thanks for the reply, JPTO. I didn’t intend to start a flame war between myself and anybody else, not the least of whom you. A couple more things, then I’ll let it rest. Your replies are welcomed and will be read with interest.
I’m not “angry” or “in a tizzy”, and I don’t appreciate you spinning my comments that way. I am passionate about my thoughts and convictions, and I will admit that I get exasperated when I read misinformation being spewed by ignorant non-SAG people. If you are SAG, or are not connected with AMPTP, I apologize for those assumptions.
It’s not a “weak argument” to suggest that any forum posters are shills for the AMPTP. It’s overwhelming and obvious. When someone such as you publicly posts so-called “information”, which is both inaccurate and misleading, it’s clear that those people are simply perpetuating these myths and misconceptions about what SAG is doing and what the AMPTP is doing. I’m talking FACTS here, not assumptions.
I also didn’t have any argument about the WB and I’m not sure why you brought it up in the first place. Please don’t put words in my mouth. More spin.
You further wrote:
My only point is that Guilds (and some really do think in this kind of far reaching way) need to work not only for their members short term interest, but for the long term interest of the industry itself. But SAG has become so bipolar and self-involved that this kind of discussion has become impossible for them. This negotiation has exposed, if nothing else, SAG’s incompetance (sic) and narcissism. Maybe this has something to do with SAG’s vicious rates of unemployment…hard to say.
I would not only call that uninformed, but cheap shots at SAG. “Incompetence?” “Narcissism?” “SAG’s vicious rates of unemployment?” No, you’re not SAG after all.
SAG has to negotiate against a double standard. When SAG stands their ground and refuses to let the big dog push them around they’re called “militant”. But when the AMPTP stands firm on their position after giving very little in the earlier negotiations they’re called “tough and savvy”.
You must realize that although SAG negotiators would LOVE to play the temporary, short-term game to keep the film rolling, if they give up anything right now (participation in profits, clip permission and job protection from declining on product placement, for instance) they (we) will never get that back, no matter what the AMPTP says. SAG negotiators know this because the AMPTP has shown their intent in the past in this very same scenario. (See DVD deal in this and other posts.) All of this is absolutely long-term thinking – by BOTH parties, frankly.
I can’t argue that there’s not some divisiveness inside the SAG leadership (or wanna-be leadership). All of these people want what’s best for actors, and most are (like me) frustrated with the status quo. As I posted earlier, some of those higher-ups think it’s productive to go public with their frustrations – for whatever reason – and slinging mud at their own. The AMPTP and their minions are feeding that divisiveness with misleading “news” in the press, and with anonymous discussion board posters. Whatever the depth of that internal problem, it’s a separate issue which has no bearing on the contract negotiations and SAG will eventually work out those internal problems. For any non-SAG body to keep slinging that mud in public is attempting to cloud the issue at hand, and attempting to make SAG look weak. Which we’re not.
I luv JOE JONAS he is sooooo fit! Miley Rocks! I like her song
You may find this article on the SAG Ultra Low Budget Agreement interesting:
http://www.easy-budget.com/articles/articles.asp?article=ultralow