Today I was able to confirm the authenticity of this email sent by actor Jason Alexander to SAG members:
hello my friends and colleagues,
like many or most of you, i have been struggling over the state of our union’s current negotiations and the upcoming ballot to authorize a strike. it is a very complex issue at a very complex time. i have received emails and missives from several people of integrity, representing several aspects of the thought process.
for better or worse, here is my response. i offer it for your own thought process, neither to advocate for or against, but merely to weigh.
our screen actors guild, from my perspective, is in a very precarious position. we have been for many years. we have internal fractures that factions that cannot seem to find common ground and often cannot find common courtesy. we have had long standing relationships, like our agency franchise agreements, lost. we have seen our relations with our sister union, aftra, equally degraded.
additionally, our industry is undergoing enormous seismic shifts. i’m sure i do not need to point out that the pillars of our television and film systems are crumbling. a new technology is emerging to challenge the traditional formats and models. we are finally becoming an industry of the 21st century, but we are still tenaciously holding to structures from the 1900’s – structures of production, distribution, accounting, financing, etc. the necessity for “professionals” in the entertainment industry is being constantly challenged.
in a time when i believe all the creative unions should be sitting down with the producers and joining together to protect our mutual interest in keeping our industry professional and profitable, we instead pursue selfish self-interest and the marginalization of each other. we don’t need the outside world to destroy us, we can do it ourselves.
however, sag has a very current dilemna and it needs a resolution. to strike over issues that are real and legitimate, or not. our best interests are not being represented with the current offer and our reps feel that only austere behavior can move this negotiation forward. but the reality is that to do so, we would subject our entire industry to a work stoppage during the most catastrophic financial times in the last 50 years. can sag afford to be the nail in the coffin while being so close to being the corpse inside it?
my personal feeling is – no. i cannot in good conscience vote to take a stand that i know will stop good men and women from earning their livings at this time. i cannot stand on a picket line and prevent grips and gaffers and technicians and operators and caterers and office staff from earning their livings. i can’t send jobs that should be under sag contracts scurrying over to the even worse conditions of an aftra contract. i cannot tell people who are struggling that i come first. i just cannot.
what i am willing to do is accept a lesser contract and ride out these most turbulent of times. or better yet, i would ask our reps to accept the best version of the current deal but only for an 18-24 month limit. at that time, sag would have first and best crack at establishing a realistic contract going forward, instead of being the last guys into the pool. the dga sets the bar in each negotiation and we get relegated to those parameters all the time. let’s be the first union in going forward, instead of the last.
also, during those 2 years, we could and must focus on the two issues that diminish us the most – the vast internal chasm of our own union and the ever-growing gulf that divides us from ourselves in aftra. we must repair our houses. if our own ground is not firm, how can we possibly expect to make a stand for others? we have work to do, not work to stop.
we can survive a few years of less than perfect compensation in order to do the hard work of mending our own broken bones. we need to support each other. we need to understand each other. and we need, more than ever to work together with our fellow creative artists to protect each other and our industry as a whole. that is the best and greatest work we can be doing right now. not drawing lines in the sand over digital residuals.
yes, proper compensation is vital. yes, there are issues to fight for. but we are not an army ready to stand alone right now. nor are our allies ready to support us in that fight. so before we take arms, let’s pause and rally our troops, truly understand what we are fighting for and stand together. for that, we need time, focus and some very hard work.
i am voting no to strike authorization for now. we have other work to do. i wish you all a happy, healthy, peaceful, successful holiday and i look to our new year, and our new country with optimism and hopefulness.
your colleague,
jason alexander
like many or most of you, i have been struggling over the state of our union’s current negotiations and the upcoming ballot to authorize a strike. it is a very complex issue at a very complex time. i have received emails and missives from several people of integrity, representing several aspects of the thought process.





Bravo. Hard to argue with that.
Dear Jason,
If the commercial producers insist on the same deal from SAG as we have given AMPTP (under your proposal) should SAG put the good men and women in catering and crew out of work for a commercials strike? Or should actors and their reps lose all commercials residuals too?
Everything that Mr. Alexander is wrote is true. The economy is bad, AFTRA is stabbing SAG in the back, and the AMPTP/studios would love for SAG to dissolve and become meaningless. There’s infighting, a me first attitude, and a host of other issues…
All that said, at NO point have the studios/AMPTP EVER added or revisted or renegotiated or given more favorable terms once a contract has been signed. If anything, they’ve ignored the terms they’ve settled on (witness the recent issues with the WGA) and then, come next contract tried to take away things they’ve agreed to…
The future is NOW. To wait until some unspecified date that’ll never arrive is a fool’s errand.
The most compelling statement out of this is Alexander rightfully pointing out how futile a work stoppage is when AFTRA is there to fill in the gaps. There should be only ONE union for actors. This will happen again during the next round of negotiations unless a merger is fast-tracked. Otherwise, a lack of a united front will make any SAG threats seem inconsequential. AMPTP knows how impotent the actors are, and must be laughing their heads off at all of the in-fighting.
Jason…
You have millions in the bank and you’ll always be able to negotiate far about the minimums so of course you don’t care if any of us non-celebs ever get residuals again. I can’t believe you’re naive enough to think the AMPTP would renegotiate anything we give away now. And how about the $60 million in force majuere payments they’re already contractually obligated to pay they just want to ignore?
They did this to us with DVD, saying they’d reopen the discussion later on and they NEVER did. You got screwed on that one yourself… remember the Seinfeld DVD’s you refused to help promote because you wouldn’t make more than a few crumbs in residuals while Seinfeld himself made millions?
If we don’t negotiate a fair payment for new media now, we’re done. You’re not – because you could get residuals on new media projects if you asked for them… but how about giving a break to future performers who want a shot at making a living in this business? Do you really want to take away their ability to make a living? You won’t have anyone to act with who isn’t another celebrity soon because all of us will be off doing other jobs.
A strike authorization is NOT A STRIKE… but it gives SAG SOMETHING to work with in the leverage department that AFTRA hasn’t already taken away.
All those Seinfeld millions and he can’t buy a computer with a working CAPS LOCK!
Now to the content, the reasons he gives for voting ‘No’ are nonsense:
1. SAG will never get support from the fellow guilds, they have different interests (AFTRA in particular) it didn’t this time, why would it next time?
2. “all the creative unions should be sitting down with the producers and joining together to protect our mutual interest in keeping our industry profitable”… ARE YOU INSANE? The AMTP’s interest is 180 degrees opposite to yours, the less they pay people, the more profitable they are.
3. “we need to support each other” again, why would it be different next time?
The only sensible thing he observes in the propoensity for SAG to shoot itself in the foot, but if there was some loyalty behind the leadership (even if it is just for show) the guild would be in a much stronger position.
Isn’t “throwing it in reverse” exactly what the AMPTP/studios are counting on? What if SAG just stood their ground and refused to accept a “bad” deal, operated without a contract (as they’ve been doing for the past 6 months), waited the studios out until the economy picks up and then negotiate again from a stronger position–I mean there’s no time limit or exit strategy for the length a time one can perform under an expired contract, is there?
Better the old deal, then a “new” deal that locks in terms that are unsatisfactory, right? That way, everyone saves face for the time being anyway.
Just to correct Mr. Alexander’s comment about the AFTRA TV Agreement.
In fact the AFTRA TV contract is NOT worse than the SAG TV Agreement. When negotiations opened in the spring, they were virtually the same and at the moment it is demonstrably better, and more expensive for producers to use. That means significantly higher wages, improved working conditions, higher contributions to pension and health plans, etc.
The AFTRA TV Agreement took the DGA pattern and built upon it in the area of New Media, and got the “Covered Performer’ language…..if one professional performer is used, the entire production must be covered. And of course, secured jurisdiction over product made for the internet and for new media.
Anne
Somebody wants to run SAG…
I second that – BRAVO Jason Alexander. Thank you for saying out loud what we all hope MORE actors will feel….that a few extra dollars in their pockets ….even if they managed to get it, is not more important than the rest of us being able to work, feed our families, maintain our hours so we can maintain our health benefits and somehow manage through this already difficult economic time.
Thank you Jason Alexander. You ROCK!!!
There is a cosmetically decent thought in here and that is the short-term contract idea, which is a poison pill for the AMPTP. If they really want to play the “times are bad that’s why this offer is bad” card, then a short term/interim agreement forces them to put their money where their mouth is and renegotiate when times are good. Unfortunately the reality is that the bad-economic-times mantra is entirely disingenuous and is merely good cover for this crappy offer, which if we recall is the same crappy offer that was on the table when times were supposedly good. Likewise, the AMPTP is never going to agree to a deal that takes the DGA off the table as the trendsetter for all the obvious reasons.
Perhaps we might want to revisit history, because strikes very often happen when the economy is bad. The simple reason is because corporations always see bad economic times as good cover to screw down costs on their labor, usually with promises that when things are better the next deal will be better. But that rarely happens because by the time the next deal rolls around and things are better economically, the last model has become ingrained and employers huff and puff about percentage wage gains. If you’re making $1000 and I cut your wages 10% when things are bad, you go down to $900. Then if I give you a 10% raise when things are good you go from $900 to $990. I win, and that’s not even counting inflation. That’s the game the AMPTP wants to play here, and you’re going to let them.
“i cannot in good conscience vote to take a stand that i know will stop good men and women from earning their livings at this time. i cannot stand on a picket line and prevent grips and gaffers and technicians and operators and caterers and office staff from earning their livings. i can’t send jobs that should be under sag contracts scurrying over to the even worse conditions of an aftra contract. i cannot tell people who are struggling that i come first. i just cannot.”
I cannot in good conscience vote to prevent future generations from earning a decent standard of living.
We are not responsible for any group other than actors, and we will never improve our lot if we don’t do it now. I’m voting YES.
Outstanding commentary, Jason. You laid it all out beautifully. definitely the best writing I’ve seen on this contentious subject.
If I was sitting on 9 seasons of Seinfeld resids that had already been negotiated by the union on my behalf, as well as having the network primetime notoriety to negotiate whatever new contract I please, I would probably feel the same way.
Mr. Alexander has little in common with the rank and file who will struggle to pay their bills for the next 10 years with the terms of the June 30 AMPTP offer.
Jason Alexander writes, “like many or most of you, i have been struggling…”
He should hire someone to hit the shift key for him. He’s willing to bastardize our union and our elements of style.
When you’re rich tomorrow may look bright, but for the rest of us all we ever have is NOW.
I disagree.
Not…Yet…SCAB!
I’ve been reading the opinions from various actors who earn more from residuals than most actors make in a year and I find it amazing that they’ll strongly suggest people see their point of view when they are so far removed from the real war artists are fighting. And worse, this thing is at a point where actors are suggesting folks undermine the power and authority of their union without seeing the devastation to SAG that will come from a ‘no’ vote. This is not about combining strength three years from now and getting all the unions to stand up together. First of all, the DGA and AMPTP will make and announce a signed agreement long before the three year mark because they fly solo. They are in a whole different position than actors and writers.
The thing that boggles my mind is that actors are accusing their own union of forcing a strike because they won’t give in and sign onto this crap offer, when it’s the AMPTP who are forcing this action, NOT SAG. Don’t you get it? SAG doesn’t want to strike. They just want to protect actors and protect the guild. So, instead of being pissy and saying that SAG wants to strike and the leaders are looking to get you to vote so they can strike, why don’t you get on the side of your leaders and your union and say, “Come on AMPTP, don’t force this situation on us! Do the write thing. This is a terrible economy and yet you studios won’t do what it takes to keep everyone working?! What’s wrong with you, studio heads?” Why can’t Jason Alexander and others see it that way? THIS SITUATION IS NOT SAG’S DOING. THIS IS THE AMPTP FORCING THEIR WILL. I’m not in any of the unions. I’m just telling you what I see. SAG’s DECISION HERE IS NOT GOING TO PUT PEOPLE OUT OF WORK. IT IS THE AMPTP’S ACTIONS THAT COULD LEAD TO PEOPLE BEING OUT OF WORK. Stand by your union and vote for new leaders another day if you disagree. But, stand by your frigging union and stop trying to bury your leaders and the membership.
-Think it Through
Dear Jason,
Cut the e.e. cummings crap and use caps.
Squajo
Well stated, but doesn’t his keyboard have a shift key?
Jason,
If the actors who came before you were as naive, you would not have made your millions on Seinfeld. You would have made 32.50 an episode and not have your pension/health or residuals.
If you cannot understand that one generation is called upon to sacrifice for the next, your guild is doomed.
Perhaps it is anyway — as SAG does not cover digital technology (the real reason contracts are going to AFRTA)…
But at least man, have the courage and moral standing to fight the good fight on the side of right.
Sound reasonable while acting cowardly is cowardly. Actions speak louder than words, alwasy. You are either a fighter, or a folder.
I guess we know who you are.
This is just foolish. There is never a good time to strike. They are a necessary evil and if we do not draw a line now, there will be no future for middle class actors such as myself.
Written arguments are more convincing when they are grammatically correct, at the very least. This argument is as much of a sham as the idea of a millionaire actor about grips losing work. What about the struggling actors who will lose out on this deal? They should be the sacrificial lambs? What a narcissistic prick.
I guess most of the comments are about spelling. Way to go opposition.
Everyone who opposes a strike is branded a coward (not to speak of a “narcissistic prick” with poor grammar skills). Really? Let’s see some courage from the SAG board: send out the strike authorization vote, along with the AMPTP’s deal proposal for a ratification vote. Empower your membership to make a real choice.
My guess is that Rosenberg and his many supporters around these parts don’t want that because they know which proposition will get more “yes” votes in this economy.
Cowardice? Pot. Kettle. Speak amongst yourselves.