SAG’s Alan Rosenberg & Doug Allen Send Letter To Peter Chernin, Bob Iger, Nick Counter To Restart Formal Negotiations

COMMENTS (22)

• Hm.

  This letter seems … reasonable.

  The tone is … measured and … sober.

  It’s clear that S.A.G. has offered to make painful compromises on many issues that were dear to actors’ hearts.

  But that would indicate maturity and responsibility and flexibility.

  And haven’t we been given to understand that Rosenberg and Allen are immature, irresponsible and pathologically unreasonable?

  How will the AMPTP respond?

  Will the CEOs stand up and step forward?

  They ARE the mature, responsible, reasonable parties in this process. Aren’t they?

  Comment by Dave Clennon — Monday September 29, 2008 @ 12:56pm PDT  Reply to this post

• What will SAg do when told no?
  Strike?
  ROTFLMAO!!!!
  They have zero support in this town at this point.

  Comment by FairyTaleListener — Monday September 29, 2008 @ 2:20pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Interesting starting offer, I wonder how much they’re willing to concede. Unfortunately, the current situation on Wall Street makes it unlikely that corporate shareholders would sign off on that kind of deal. And because the recent writers’ strike was so damaging to pocketbooks on all sides, I doubt there would be a wellspring of support for another work stoppage, no matter how just the cause.

  Comment by tammanycall — Monday September 29, 2008 @ 3:56pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Response from CEO’s: Due to the large stock losses the previous offer is reduced by 25%.

  Comment by DOW CRASHES — Monday September 29, 2008 @ 4:03pm PDT  Reply to this post

• So by this letter are they saying that there are only two issues that they are adamant about and that they will cave on everything else? Thats how I read it but I would like to know if anybody else reads it differently.

  Comment by richard — Monday September 29, 2008 @ 4:09pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Like Dave Clennon I’m happy to see SAG reaching out and trying to be reasonable but still the fact remains…SAG has less and less of very little leverage in these negotiations. I’m still begging for someone to cut through the campaign rhetoric and really tell me what a reasonable endgame for this could look like. What if the moguls wait another month to grant SAG their wish and then sit down. What’s SAG going to negotiate with…? Basically, as power politics go, SAG has the power to take dictation. And that’s about it.

  So…if there can’t be a strike, and if the period for leveraged negotiation is long, long, LONG gone…what does SAG propose to do? Simply work without a contract?

  Comment by I'm confused — Monday September 29, 2008 @ 4:25pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Bet the big media boys loved getting this letter today. SAGs timing is superb… like a fly buzzing around your head as you’re watching your stocks plummet.
  SAG wrote; “If your intransigence continues, however, our choices become harder and fewer.” sorry, but I’m LOL…way to go SAG, I sure the media big boys will step right up. buzzzzzzzzzzzz

  Comment by btl teamster — Monday September 29, 2008 @ 4:41pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Well it looks like the AMPTP spin machine got here before the SAG supporters did.

  Here’s a fair and sober view of Allen and Rosenberg’s letter: between the lines, you’ll see “or we’ll strike” written all over it. And all the spin in the world won’t stop us. That view is supported by the recent poll showing over 85% of respondents denying SAG’s acceptance of that contract. While that body of support doesn’t translate completely into a 75% strike vote it’ll be damned close, and that’s much higher than the AMPTP dreamed it would be. That’s why they’re whining about SAG sending out the poll.

  This letter is a gauntlet. SAG has been careful to present itself contrary to the misnomer of “militant”, so this letter is a nice way of saying, “…you’ve seen the numbers; you know it’s not gonna happen. Now pull your heads out of your asses and let’s deal with the reality of it. Before you really piss us off. (smile)”

  “Will the CEOs stand up and step forward? They ARE the mature, responsible, reasonable parties in this process. Aren’t they?”

  No, Dave, they are the greedy bottom-line, bottom-feeding business people who hoard all of the money, and who are attempting to deny professionals our fair portion of it. They’re still screwing BTL I.A.T.S.E. members, and they’re already screwing the writer’s out of their newly contracted money. SAG (negotiators) has repeatedly been calm, forthright, consistent, negotiable and open to ideas from all parties considered.

  While the current U.S. financial woes and the recent WGA strike are still hurting all of us in the pocketbook, this contract is a much more prescient consideration – to the Screen Actor’s Guild, anyway. It’s our future and we’re not giving it away. And more than money, it’s also about principles – of which the AMPTP is tremendously lacking.

  Now where the hell did I put that poster board, wooden handle and sign paint? (*rummaging around under the bed*) I’ll bet some WGA friends would like to write a catchy slogan on my picket sign for me…

  Comment by Ace — Monday September 29, 2008 @ 6:38pm PDT  Reply to this post

• “We believe it is clear that our members would fail to ratify your proposal of June 30, 2008. It would serve no productive purpose, therefore, to send our membership a proposal that SAG’s National Negotiating Committee and National Board have rejected and that our membership would not ratify.”

  Sounds like the board is assuming a whole lot based on the intentionally biased wording on the postcard poll. I say send it vote and get a REAL ANSWER from the membership instead of an assumed/coerced one. Should have already happened IMO.

  Comment by Transpo — Monday September 29, 2008 @ 6:48pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Reply to “I’m confused” (from Dave Clennon):

  You ask, “So … if there can’t be a strike … what does SAG propose to do? Simply work without a contract?”

  I don’t think it’s true that “there can’t be a strike.”

  Do you mean that, during this negotiating period, however long it may last, S.A.G. members will NEVER have the will to vote 3-to-l to authorize a strike? If that’s what you mean, you COULD be right.

  BUT.

  In spite of the bar-code false alarm sounded by Unite-for-Strength, in spite S.A.G.’s adversaries declaring that their vote would be meaningless, over 10,000 members voted in the contract survey. 87% of those who voted rejected the AMPTP’s last offer.

  I believe that that result gives us SOME indication as to how S.A.G. members would vote if the contract were submitted to them for formal ratification.

  If, in a democratic process, we refuse to ratify (even by a slender margin), then talks must resume, and the AMPTP MAY realize that the time has come for SERIOUS proposals to be SERIOUSLY considered.

  Regarding your question about working without a contract: we’ve already worked without a contract for three months. And it’s not uncommon for unions to work without contracts for much longer periods, AND to achieve better contracts than management’s “last, best, final” offers before the previous contract expired.

  My financial cushion is fairly thin and threadbare.

  But I am prepared to work under the old contract until
  I expire, rather than have our leadership surrender and advise us to ratify that stinking pile of insults the AMPTP left on the table on June 30. And it’s not about old-timers like me, anyway. I’m on a S.A.G. pension — thanks to the actors who struggled before us. I’ll survive, even if I don’t get to work again.

  But we owe it to the next generation to fight for their chance to make a living wage doing what we all love.

  AFTRA’s current leadership may succeed temporarily in enlarging their jurisdicton at our expense. But if S.A.G. achieves its goals (which are clearly within reason), then I believe AFTRA leadership will face open rebellion, with one show’s cast after another demanding re-negotiation or threatening to de-certify
  AFTRA.

  I believe that the longer we refuse to accept the AMPTP’s last terms, the better chance we have of cutting through the studio-network propaganda and dis-information; and the chances are better that a big majority of our members will gain the insight and the clarity and the courage to stand up to the CEOs and their henchmen.

  Dear “I’m confused:” you also seem to have bought the deception, which has evolved into conventional “wisdom,” that we have been permanently “de-leveraged.”

  The show doesn’t go on, without actors.

  Without us, Leslie Moonves, a failed actor, has no product. Nor do Chernin, Gray, Iger, Lynton, Meyer, Sloan and Zucker. And they never even TRIED to act.

  It’s only an opinion, but I don’t think we lose leverage unless we lose faith in ourselves. If we believe in ourselves, if we believe in our value as performers, then we have more than enough leverage to win a fair contract for ourselves and for the actors who come after us.

  And we could stand as an example to other workers that, with unity and determination, they can win, too.

  I also urge you to watch very carefully the actions of the new Unite-for-Strength Board members. During their campaign they declared that they wanted just what our negotiating team was fighting for.

  I was very skeptical, but they could surprise us. If they’re willing to postpone their drive for merger with AFTRA, if they’re willing to line up, temporarily, with MembershipFirst, and Unite(!), for Strength(!), behind our negotiators, then the newcomers COULD tip the scales and give us the leverage you think we lost long, long, LONG ago.

  Don’t let the bastards discourage you. Persevere.

  Comment by Dave Clennon — Monday September 29, 2008 @ 7:01pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I supported MF. Fervently. They lost the election. It was close, but they lost. The poll gives one pause, I agree. I was stunned that, after the poll, the election turned out the way it did. The membership spoke out of both sides of its mouth – yes, we want a better contract, no, we won’t give the faction willing to strike to get it enough support. Which translates, roughly, into – we want something better, but we don’t have the stomach to fight for it.

  It’s been great to see actors like Dave Clennon put themselves out there, but when David refers to “we,” he needs to be careful. SAG will know “we,” when they either send this contract for ratification, or, just cut to the chase and send the ballot for a strike authorization.

  But stop delaying. The members know what’s at stake. No education required. It’s not about you, Alan and Doug, it’s about the membership. Before you send a bizarre letter stating the membership “obviously” will do anything, it might be a good idea to check with the membership.

  SAG will move, and fast, if Alan and Doug will bow to the wishes of the membership. Send either the contract, or a strike ballot out. NOW. Let’s get this over with. Stop holding the membership, post election, hostage to your whim. You think you got it? Great! I hope you do! But you can’t negotiate on a poll result. The AMPTP’s bitch-slap of a response tells you all you need to know. You CAN negotiate with a strike authorization in your back pocket, but you have to ASK. Get it over with, otherwise you are violating the responsibility you have to the PEOPLE YOU SERVE.

  Comment by Franklin Barr — Monday September 29, 2008 @ 8:02pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I could not agree more Franklin. Put it to a vote. I personally have the feeling that the reason that MF got the 85% support vote was because the people that voted for them were mostly supporters of their cause to start with. The rest of us didn’t buy their reasons for conducting this poll to begin with and we chose to do our talking with our vote during the elections. Doug Allen, Alan Rosenberg, Ann Marie Johnson and some of these others are clearly in survival mode at this point, as this latest letter makes clear. You can blame the big bad producers all you want but these people who have led our negotitions for SAG have fallen on their own pitard. They might as well have paved a road to AFTRA’s door with their behavior. Sometimes it’s not what you are going for, its how you do it. So let’s be done with it. Let’s vote. If it turns out the way I imagine it will, it will leave these folks no choice but move on and lick their wounds out of the presence of the rest of us, who have clearly moved on from this debacle. Okay, all you MF warriors…have at me. I’m fully expecting it. I stand ready to be savaged.

  Comment by Are We There Yet? — Monday September 29, 2008 @ 9:14pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I think there’s a misconception surrounding the results of the postcard poll.

  The poll asked, in effect, whether we wanted a better contract than the final offer of 6/30. If we did, we should check the first statement; if not, then the second.

  And gosh, who doesn’t want a better contract. But, more importantly, who would want to identify themselves as NOT wanting a better contract. Notwithstanding, the barcode, who would check a box that implies giving in.

  The postcard didn’t ask if we’d be willing to strike, or how long we’d like to negotiate, or what the most salient issues were. Those might have given a better snapshot of the mood of the membership.

  I think what this poll tacitly asked was this: Are you strong like bull, or are you weak like kitten? And in that dichotomy, it would be surprising to get a representative response.

  I think what the results showed was that many people looked at the postcard and didn’t know how to answer, because, yes they wanted a better deal, but at what cost. So I think a great number of people simply abstained.

  I think the 9,015 or so people that voted to ‘Continue negotiating’ is closer to the absolute number hardcore Membership First supporters that will turn out than it is a representative sample of the membership as a whole.

  This would explain the difference in the outcomes of the postcard poll and the election.

  Comment by Todd Waring — Monday September 29, 2008 @ 9:55pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Lamentably, another way of reading the election results is celebrity trumps pretty much everything else.

  And perhaps a good way of reading the poll results is that SAG’s overwhelming rejection of the AMPTP’s so-called last best final offer is the culmination of months of patient and persistent member education about the importance of the issues facing us in this contract negotiation.

  If that analysis is more accurate than Todd Waring’s, then 75%+ of SAG membership may well be willing to vote for a strike.

  The AMPTP’s response to SAG’s most recent missive sound like an invitation to take that strike vote.

  The current Wall Street problems have little to do directly with these negotiations. A strike is never easy for labor, but we have to be willing to go to the mat for the future of our profession. And make no mistake, that’s what’s at stake.

  Comment by mheister — Tuesday September 30, 2008 @ 12:02am PDT  Reply to this post

• I agree with mheister’s reading of the Board elections. Celebrity trumps real politics.

  The u4s capture of 5.95 National Board seats is unthinkable without the presence of Amy Brenneman on their slate.

  Many of us seem to believe that we of the rank-and-file will fare better if a star represents us when we face the CEOs and their surrogates. It doesn’t seem to matter that, in many cases, the star has never been in a union Board room, or has never served on a S.A.G. committee.

  But I think I see a mark of increasing political sophistication among voting members. Brenneman drew the most votes of the eighty-some candidates. But more than half of Hollywood voting members rejected her candidacy. Perhaps they suspected that a member of the entertainment aristocracy might not understand the needs of ordinary actors, and might not be willing to go toe-to-toe, for 15 rounds, with the AMPTP, on behalf of the proletarians.

  We’ve learned to ask, “When was the last time Amy or Adam Arkin or Kate Walsh worked for scale? Given their upfront salaries, do residuals matter to them? Will they feel the pain when their shows re-run on the internet for less than $100 a year?”

  “If they perform in a production for a new medium, will their session fees be large enough so they won’t notice that they never, ever get a residual for re-use in that medium? Would any producer refuse to hire Amy Brenneman if she declined to sign away her clip-consent?”

  If our political savvy has grown over the last ten years or so, I think some of the credit should go to M1 (MembershipFirst), whom I strenuously opposed, until I got caught up, as a foot soldier, in support of the writers’ strike.

  Comment by Dave Clennon — Tuesday September 30, 2008 @ 1:25am PDT  Reply to this post

• WRONG.

  The postcard mailer asked members to state how they “FEEL” about the negotiations. And gave this option to describe how they “FEEL”:

  1. Would you like a nice warm turkey dinner with all the trimmings?

  2. Would you prefer a dish of cold moist cat food?

  How do you “FEEL” about those choices?

  Comment by Bill Gray — Tuesday September 30, 2008 @ 8:14am PDT  Reply to this post

• I like Dave Clennon…I like his spirit. and I like his idea that it’s the committment of the members who might create leverage. It’s a nice idea.

  But my point is let’s have a reality check. The poll was meaningless, the way it was worded and the actual percentage of active members who bothered to respond pretty much say it all. It’s true, ya never know, but a strike authorization at this time is hugely unlikely which is why (hello) SAG hasn’t asked for one. Because once you ask for a strike authorization and you don’t get it…the jig is really REALLY up.

  So….what now? Still no one has any idea what to do. With this letter the SAG negotiators have proved once again that their sense of timing and strategy could not be worse. Let’s just say it: SAG is begging. The longer this waits the better it is for the AMPTP and the worse it is for SAG. As painful as it is, the best play here is probably the long one, sign some sort of contract and start planning intelligently for the next round of negotiations in a couple years….

  Comment by still confused — Tuesday September 30, 2008 @ 9:09am PDT  Reply to this post

• Stop arguing the case, pro and con. We all know the case. Stop looking backward. Stop spinning the poll one way or the other. Stop parsing the percentage of the Hollywood percentage that voted for Amy Brenneman. It doesn’t matter. It’s a waste of time and megabytes. The issue is – will SAG return a 75% strike authorization vote? Until we are ALLOWED to answer that question, all of this is utterly pointless. SEND THE BALLOT.

  Comment by Franklin Barr — Tuesday September 30, 2008 @ 9:22am PDT  Reply to this post

• Regarding the ‘Celebrity trumps politics’ argument:

  Joe Balogna
  Lainie Kazan
  Charles Shaughnessy
  Scott Bakula
  JoBeth Williams
  Alan Ruck
  Keith Carradine
  Joely Fisher
  Clancy Brown

  Come on. These are celebrities.

  The election was, to a great degree, a referendum on merger. We’ll see if it’s a mandate.

  Comment by todd waring — Tuesday September 30, 2008 @ 10:44am PDT  Reply to this post

• “The show doesn’t go on, without actors.” I agree, Dave, but there is no distinction to the union status of said actors.

  The studio heads, failed actors or not, don’t operate on “feelings” or “believing in themselves.” They operate on the bottom line. They are never going to agree to a deal they don’t find more beneficial to themselves or give the actors a feeling of a leg up.

  If we learned anything from the writer’s strike is that once they’ve made up their minds, the studio heads don’t budge and they have deep enough pockets to wait it out. And in this case, they essentially have the other unions on their side by way of DGA, WGA and AFTRA deals who also wanted internet issues addressed. Not to say the SAG demands aren’t reasonable, the approach is the problem.

  What studio heads understand is a hit to their wallets but SAG doesn’t want to put this town through another strike especially in these unstable times. The studio heads are counting on that. But that’s precisely the time to strike. It actually should have happened months ago in effect delaying the fall season. It lets the studio heads know the actors aren’t just a group of overly emotional people and we will stand up for what we want even if that means not working for how ever long it takes. That’s where the belief in ourselves comes into play. We believe in ourselves and our cause so much that we are willing face the financial burden of an indefinite strike period. The problem is we can’t agree amongst ourselves so we place ourselves in a very weak position.

  Furthermore, working under a contract we’re not happy with doesn’t make sense. It’s like a kid telling a bully that he doesn’t like getting wedgies but until they both can agree to something better, he’ll take it.

  If we’ve been doing this for 3 months, how can we reasonably expect the studios to change? So if we’re not really willing to do what it takes, we should just accept the crappy deal and move on especially if that’s what we’re going to end up doing anyway.

  Comment by Stacie — Tuesday September 30, 2008 @ 1:10pm PDT  Reply to this post

• “This war’s gonna end someday.”

  Duvall in Apocalypse.

  Patience.

  We are at the mercy of our own incompetence, disunity, ignorance, weakness, and laziness. We are a union in name only. The people making good money don’t want any part of a strike and the people making little or no money don’t care. The stars are off saving Sudan, the oceans, the polar bears, the ozone layer, curing AIDS, adopting African children, ending Lou Gehrig’s disease, Parkinson’s, Cancer, stopping land mines, training for triathalons, building extensions on their vacation homes, writing screenplays, directing movies, appearing on “The View” to push the new film about the new superhero, putting out cd’s and books of their poetry, enjoying their courtside seats at Laker and Knick games, doing network PSA’s for free, advising parents to pay better attention to their kids, while pumping out episodes of their series for 100k a pop and not having kids because they’ll get in the way of their career, getting divorced from the love of their life because he fucked his costar so hard she had to have her make-up redone before being called to set, getting married to another actor who then fucks the nanny before entering rehab for a sex addiction, slumming on Broadway or Off-Broadway, appearing in ads for perfume or cologne, modeling clothes, talking to “journalists” about how they approach acting, and, you know, life in general, appearing on “The Actor’s Studio” and spending the next month getting James Lipton’s tongue out of their ass, producing movies themselves, and avoiding unions whenever they can while forcing low ball one time buyouts on their actors for the DVD of the mini-series they’re making that will sell for decades so the actors don’t get a fair cut, hobnobbing with all the other bright shiny objects and thanking their agents if they win anything at the 400 award shows they attend each year, having their assistant’s assistant sign their headshots for the fans they owe their careers to but avoid like the plague, telling their manager to tell their publicist to tell their agent to tell the producer to tell the director of the indie movie they’re thinking of doing that they “just want to be heard,” wearing baseball caps and sunglasses while being photographed leaving Starbucks with a 140 ounce cup of coffee, talking into their blueray earpiece, while texting their mom on their blackberry…

  But, their fellow actors?

  Fuck ‘em. “Take the deal.”

  Comment by Matt Mulhern — Tuesday September 30, 2008 @ 2:01pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Send the ballot. Let us vote. Send the ballot. Let us vote.

  Comment by pat skipper — Tuesday September 30, 2008 @ 7:27pm PDT  Reply to this post