Midnight Madness For ‘Breaking Dawn’ DVD 
BAFTA Awards: What ‘Artist’, Dujardin, Streep … 
64th BAFTA Awards Winners: ‘The Artist’, Meryl … 
BAFTA 2012 Preview: Very British Affair Takes On … 
RECORD-BREAKING WEEKEND! 4 Films Open $20+M: ‘The … 
Remembered: Jennifer Hudson To Perform Whitney Houston … 
Live From NY, It’s Jean Dujardin On 
R.I.P. Whitney Houston 
TOLDJA! Indomina-BET Buy Sundance ‘LUV’ 
Saoirse Ronan Bigger Teen Action Queen 
WME Signs Writer-Director Jon Kasdan 
‘Glee’s Jane Lynch Joins Indie Film Comedy 
Universal Revives ‘Dracula Year Zero’ With … 
Jodie Foster Sending Mel Gibson Film ‘The … 
‘Roseanne’ Reunion: John Goodman To Co-Star In … 
UPDATE: Closing Arguments Conclude In Golden Globes Trial; … 
Series Adaptation Of ‘Legion’ With … 
Lionsgate Calms Investors With Talk About Charlie Sheen, … 
Ridley Scott Commits To Next Direct McCarthy’s … 
Marvel Studio’s Tim Connors Defects To Legendary As … 
UPDATE: Warner Bros Lawyers Dig In Garbage Over ‘The … 
Almost daily now, growing numbers of SAG actors, especially those with well-known names, are taking sides on the Strike Authorization Vote issue. But I don’t have the patience over the next few weeks to keep constantly calculating the star power of both the “Yes” or “No” solidarity signers. Especially when you can do it for yourself:
The “No” side can be monitored at http://www.nosagstrike.com/ by seeing who’s put their name to Danny DeVito’s and Rhea Perlman’s original letter to Screen Actors Guild president Alan Rosenberg “voicing clear solidarity to the principles of union [but also laying] out the reasons they believe now is not the time for SAG to pursue a strike authorization”. What was once the signatures of over 130 “highly accomplished and respected members” have now grown to 900 SAG members. High profile actors Russell Crowe, Michael Chiklis, Hilary Duff, Alyssa Milano, Julianne Moore, Robert Redford and Seann William Scott and others have joined George Clooney, Matt Damon, Tom Hanks, Pierce Brosnan, Alec Baldwin, and Josh Brolin in signing this missive to SAG Board members saying:
“We feel very strongly that SAG members should not vote to authorize a strike at this time. We don’t think that an authorization can be looked at as merely a bargaining tool. It must be looked at as what it is — agreement to strike if negotiations fail.
We support our union and we support the issues we’re fighting for, but we do not believe in all good conscience that now is the time to be putting people out of work.
None of our friends in the other unions are truly happy with the deals they made in their negotiations. Three years from now all the union contracts will be up again at roughly the same time. At that point if we plan and work together with our sister unions we will have incredible leverage.
As hard as it may be to wait those three years under an imperfect agreement, we believe this is what we must do. We think that a public statement should be made by SAG recognizing that although this is not a deal we want, it is simply not a time when our union wants to have any part in creating more economic hardship while so many people are already suffering.
Let’s take the high road. Let’s unite with our brothers and sisters in the entertainment community and prepare for the future, three years down the line. Then, together, let’s make a great deal.”
The “Yes” side can be monitored at http://www.sag.org/solidarity-list where now 2,300+ SAG members have signed the guild leadership’s solidarity statement. Newcomers like Laura Dern, Mary Stuart Masterson, Jeremy Sisto, Matthew Modine, Sharon Gless, Mo Gaffney, and Eric Bogosian have joined Sandra Oh, Mel Gibson, Diane Ladd, Holly Hunter, Jerry O’Connell, and Rob Morrow saying:
“I support the Screen Actors Guild National Board of Directors request for members to vote YES to empower the National Board to decide whether to call a TV/Theatrical contract strike, and if so, determine its timeframe. We must arm our negotiating committee with the collective unity and strength of the Screen Actors Guild Members.”
In addition to the dueling websites and celeb lists, both sides will soon have dueling videos. SAG leaders have gotten out first on its website and at http://www.youtube.com/user/EmpowerSagVoteYes with new videos featuring Alicia Witt and Hal Holbrook and Martin Sheen joining those byo Clancy Brown, Charles Shaugnessy, and Justine Bateman.
But the real dilemma for me (and should be for everyone else) is how to weight both lists: By numbers? By TMZ heat? By generational mix? By movie stars over TV regulars? By actors over actor-producers or actor-directors or even actor-producer-directors? Your guess is as good as mine. But each SAG member has an equal vote.
Loading ...
The big guns with the big money are out in force pushing for the no vote. If it’s such a long shot, who are they trying to convince, and why the need to bother?
Not quite so coincidentally, the Oscars loom. The Oscars are the one thing that brought the AMPTP back to the table with the paltry concessions they handed to the WGA last year, approved by a mere 35% of the membership.
Now we have SAG complaining that their deal sucks. It does. Comparisons to the WGA and DGA deals are of little relevance. Those deals sucked too. What was that Wordplay thing about crap + one? The SAG deal is crap + zero.
My take is their ace in the hole is an Oscar boycott or strike. It’s the one barrel they have the AMPTP over, maybe the only one. Use it guys. A well timed strike or boycott targeting the Oscars could just work.
Oscar boycott: Maximum impact at minimal risk.
I don’t recognize the majority of names on the SAG solidarity list.
On the No SAG strik list, I can recognize probably one out of every three or four.
With respect to the big names on both sides of this fight, a clear-eyed look at the situation has already led the vast majority of actors to reject the AMPTP’s “last best final” offer. We are simply moving with deliberate speed to the next logical step.
SAG leadership needs this tool in its ongoing effort to budge the AMPTP from its obstinate intransigence. The only threat that matters to the moguls is a threat to their bottom line. The only way to threaten their bottom is to make it crystal-clear that these issues are important enough to actors to authorize a strike, and if necessary back that authorization up with a labor action. Nobody wants a strike, but the moguls are backing the actors into a corner. The AMPTP is pushing this through their intransigence, their demands that the actors give up tens of billions of dollars in residuals over the next two decades.
Our choice as actors is clear.
How accurate can a list be that contains King Kong as a signer?
Yeahhhhh, Jason Alexander’s so adamant about his Oscar hopes that he HAD to write that letter.
And real quick, can I point out that the ‘Well of course -Big name celebrity- is against a strike, they’re already rich’ argument holds no water whatsoever? If that line of reasoning held up, they wouldn’t give a shit anyway, because, as we’ve already pointed out, they’re fucking rich.
Furthermore, I like how many adamant VOTE-YES voices seem to hear the Vote-No arguments with such spite and resentment. Talking to any one of these card-holding baristas, you’d think that Jason Alexander was born rich & famous, or that George Clooney didn’t have a mullet in the 80′s. You think you’ve got it so tough, try going to work non-union for a few years. And while so many seem to harbor the same resentment for Below-the-liners, spend time on any set, and you’ll often hear a phrase growled through shit-eating grins: living the dream.
And while it’s a bit of an ironic statement, need we be reminded that perhaps the dream should be success wrought from hard work? (And no, I don’t consider mucking the industry down with useless union politics for over a year ‘hard work’. I call it arrogance.) I know we’re in the town of wild fantasies and imaginations, but I think that’s an idea that’s pretty down to earth.
This internal battle gone public is exactly what management wants; divison that will grow worse with internet prodding. Very sad. And very short-sighted.
Lord in heaven, is this silly or what?
Unsurprisingly the No side has way more high-profile actors on their side. Of course – these people have all the money in the world and don’t want a yucky strike messing up the pet projects they have going. They don’t give a rip about this deal because they negotiate their own deals. They can’t have the Oscars interrupted because they’re all up for Oscars. I’m sure I’m not the only one who finds it disgusting that the wealthy class is so vociferously encouraging the lower class to vote against their long-term interests because they wealthy can’t stand a few months delay on their latest extremely important car chase/chick flick. The sad thing is the vast majority of these people describe themselves as liberals. Proof once again that you can talk all you want, but once it becomes a question of my big money, everyone turns into a Republican.
I’m glad the WGA didn’t wait to join a potential SAG strike. Actors are a unique, possibly dying breed, split into a thousand different brackets. The perennial thesp. question of motivation now takes on interesting dimensions (for which the DGA probably wishes they asked for more to compensate for their proximity pains.)
Hot off the Press: Hitchcock has rolled over in his grave.
FWIW…history is repeating itself. One of the main issues is the argument that AMPTP needs time to “develop the biz model for New Media”… well think back a bit… HomeVideo / VHS was consider “new media” back in the late 70′s – early 80′s…. then came DVD… same argument. And even though production costs continued to drop, distribution developed through more Vidstores & critical mass via VCR’s & DVD players becoming ubiquitous…. did AMPTP come back with a “thanks for letting us develop the homevid biz model…here’s a little more for the actors / writers pockets…” we’re still waiting… I got a residual check today for a theatrical I acted in ’87… my Free TV & Pay TV net was $36… my DVD: -0.47… seriously!!
Hanks, Clooney, Damon… yeah.. keep in mind those guys are also “Producers” (Hanks’: “Charlie Wilson’s War”, Clooney’s:”Michael Clayton”, Damon’s: “Feast”)… and they have more in common with AMPTP than they do SAG. Hank’s wife, Rita Wilson has been a Producer( “My Life In Ruins”, “Mamma Mia”) and Hanks’ production relation with Spielberg is well known… so everyone should know where he’s coming from. I remember when he once appeared at an awards ceremony, proudly holding up his SAG card and extolling the benefits he’s enjoyed through SAG membership… sure he’s got a right to speak his mind…but it’s coming out of the mouth of a producer and not an actor. That should be obvious to anyone.
The only thing that seems to get the point across to studios & producers is when the workers stop working. Will it be painful….probably, will there be shake-out? Sure…but unless professional actors are willing to keep accepting less for the promise of a better day, they need to recall how much they’re getting from Homevideo VHS / DVD residuals and ask: “When is that better day coming? AMPTP has had more than 25 years to make good on homevid… it hasn’t happened yet!”
@ Josh: Are you a child actor? Your post was a non-sensical tantrum. Go sit in the corner.
Of course, if you just look at the news, you see that it’s just production cuts everywhere. For all their credit crunch rhetoric, producers aren’t exactly killing themselves trying to give some of that money (including the money that should belong to writers and actors) back to the economy. In fact, there are at least several articles a week reporting the exact opposite.
I respect most of the people on the NO list immensely, but fail to see how saying “the economy sucks, how sad” and rolling over, giving away a contract that’s actually in tune with the times we live in (new media and all), and effectively signing away the little guy’s paycheck to producers, can possibly help the economy at this point or accomplish anything other than cater to AMPTP’s greed.
Also, since when is taking the high road an effective strategy against corporate manipulators and bullies? It’s probably the most tragically misguided thing actors can do.
If you don’t recognize names on the “Yes” list, that does not diminish it, that speaks to its truth.
These are the actors who will be hurt by a 50-60% pay cut (as will tehir smaller agents). The people whose faces you may or may not recognize and names you probably won’t. These are the people who will be forced to pack up and leave LA, NOT BECAUSE THE AREN’T BOOKING, but because they are booking and still can’t make a living wage as an actor.
People on the “No” list – look at the “yes” list – these are the people who you are telling they don’t deserve to be able to pay their bills by being a working actor alone. Think of the wages and working conditions you benefited from – how do you think we got those? Think about the fact that normal working actors do not have the power to ask for more or what’s fair on their own, they NEED SAG to do that for them. Think about the fact that acting as a profession has NEVER in history been regarded with respect – you are saying that’s correct. That what we all do is nothing that a hobby. That it is ok for us to sanction NON-UNION work in our UNION contract – because I guess anyone who is cheap can also act. You know better. You are selling out the people who have trained and worked to become professional members of SAG, just like you. You are selling yourselves out. What will you do in your lean times with your $23.00 residual check? Take a friend to the movies – in case you didn’t know, entertainment is uplifting and serves a valuable purpose.
As a working actor that makes less than 17,000 (Gross in 2008 thus far with 2,300 being residuals.), I am all for authorizing a strike vote. I am not some jack-hole who calls himself an actor that does a side job to pay the bills. I am 100% actor and that is all that I do. Period. It’s a choice I made. For the AMPTP to say that the deal they are offering is “fair” is a tough pill to swallow for any member in SAG to swallow. While the ‘haves’ have most everything (Better deals, better contracts, better roles and are saying “no” to a strike vote.) and the ‘have nots’ (Working actors that have to settle with day player or small guest star roles because of the politics of this business and really have no say in this business.) struggle to get by and suffering for their craft in hopes and working hard in getting their recognition, the deal offered and is continually struck down by SAG, must send a message to management. While some working actors such as myself have the same level of ability as the ‘haves’ but don’t have “name” and would like a little bite of the pay and profit pie, the SAG contract counteroffer is for us, the little actor. The chasm is widening between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ and soon there will only be “stars” and extras. The “names” will have their deals to live off of regardless and that’s just the way the game is played. I am in this business by choice and would like to stay in it as an actor. If there is actually a work stoppage, I would be in a very serious hurt locker and actually have to try and find a j – o – b. Much like everyone else. But, now is the time. Even with the economy being in the dumper the way it is now. Thanks in no part by the same level of greed and manipulation displayed by management. The deals accepted by the other guilds and IATSI were good for them (Even though they don’t like the terms, they are working. SAG was there in support I might add.), the deal SAG wants is good for all. The “names” will say what they say because they have the luxury. “Joe The Actor” doesn’t really have a say in this except when it comes time to vote “Yes” or “No”. The deal is for the future of all actors. New and old.
Something occurred to me while reading this newest “development”. (Yeah, I know it’s digging up an old, tired story but bear with me…)
Remember accredited voting? That soapbox upon which Unite For Strength was formed (and is now a defunct, but smoldering idea) which argued that a SAG member making below a certain amount of money be barred from voting with the SAG ranks. Yeah, a bad idea – but I can see why it was conceived. Why should people who have no dog in the hunt get to vote on the hunt?
So take that idea even further to the next level.
I figure that on the other end of that $ income spectrum should rest these millionaires (both pro and con). Y’see, they really don’t have any dog in this hunt either. They negotiate their own deals with producers, and without regard for the scale players upon whose shoulders this contract weighs.
So how ’bout this: any SAG member who makes more than $500K/year is blocked from voting in this referendum, since this new contract doesn’t apply to them anyway.
Yes, I’m being facetious. But you see my point? Piping in and “signing” their name to a list of other millionaire actors is ridiculous when you consider that what they’re really saying is, “What scale actors make isn’t important to me. My union isn’t important to me anymore – I’m a star now. That $60M AMPTP owes SAG ain’t my money, so I don’t care! I’m a millionaire! Everybody should just get back to work! Now, where is my reserved parking space at Warners? And tell my studio-paid assistant that I want that latte extra hot, dammit!“
For me this isn’t about “rolling over.” This isn’t even about a bad economy.
This is about actually putting a coherent strategy together. Something we clearly don’t have now.
I’m afraid that some people are living in a dreamworld here. They seem to think that by authorizing a strike the clouds will part and they’ll finally recieve all the concessions they’ve always demanded without losing anything in return.
These same people seem not to acknowledge all the money most below-the-line actors will lose in the strike itself. There is no way possible that any residual one might recieve from the internet will make up for the lost income actors will incur from a strike. We all come out losers, either way.
Simply put, it’s a fool’s gamble.
I read people write about “self-interest.” As in: the “self-interest” of the A-List actors versus the “self-interest” of the below-the-line actors, or some nonsense like that.
But, it’ll take years to come back from a prolonged strike, and we’ll all end up with less financially — A-List or not — than we had before, with or without new media platforms included. So where exactly is the “self-interest” in that for anyone? Who plots a strategy where you knowingly will recieve less recompense whatever you do?
The “yes” side is inherently stupid for this reason. I’m sorry, but it is. There is absolutely nothing to be gained here for actors by striking.
Thus, waiting three years makes more sense for one simple reason: we’ll have the opportunity to prepare a more coherent strategy to ultimately get what we want — WITHOUT losing personal income in the process. We can work together with the other unions, we can study the actual success of the new media platforms, and we’ll be in a better position three years from now to make these arguments.
I can not understand SAG’s haste here.
We’ll actually come away with more financially by waiting then we would by going on strike now. I*t’s the better proposition for us. Unfortunately, SAG leaders can’t seem to see that far ahead.
That, in my opinion, would be in everyone’s self-interest.
Too many people here are playing too loosely with other peoples lives in order to gain too little. I find that extremely disturbing.
I urge all fellow actors to vote against this silly, and self-destructive, proposition.
Vote NO to a strike.
Who is this James Brock? I like him. I like him because he’s absolutely right about the inability of SAG to “see that far ahead”.
It’s hard to criticize your own leaders, but in this case it’s harder not to. They failed, y’all. It happens.
But to then take this failure and double down on it, to hand all the ultimate tools to folks who, despite their best intentions, have proven to be unable to make ANY deal AT ALL…to risk the incomes of not only our own, but all the others who support us…
Uh…isn’t this the definition of insanity? Or at least hysterical blindness?
How much do ya’ wanna bet the “No” group will cross picket lines to continue to get their nice fat paychecks?
They’re making lots of money so what do they care about residuals?
In watching all the in-fighting and divisiveness within SAG, I have to imagine the AMPTP folks chortling their way through the current debates as their “divide and conquer” strategy seems to be working.
Here’s my 45 cents worth of observation.
First – I completely support what SAG leadership is asking for. Just as with the WGA contract a year ago, it all comes down to (or should come down to) “when the studios make money, SAG members make money.” These cries of poverty from the studios just don’t wash.
That having been said, when it comes to closing a viable contract, it’s all about LEVERAGE. A strike threat will only give SAG leverage as long as:
A) they know they have much more than the 75% majority needed for a strike authorization among their members
B) Like the WGA with its 90% strike authorization support, the general membership needs to be willing to endure a prolonged strike in order to be taken seriously by the AMPTP
C) SAG leadership can secure the active support of their fellow guilds/unions, the advertising community and the general public as to the moral righteousness of their cause
The stronger those three factors are, the more leverage SAG will have with the AMPTP to motivate concessions and true negotiations. My fear is that with so much divisiveness within SAG, do they even have enough support to get the bare minimum 75% approval. Because if they go through with the strike authorization vote and lose, all leverage goes down the toilet and the members are screwed.
And let’s remember that the double whammy of last year’s WGA strike and the crappy economy is going to affect the support (or lack thereof) of the IA rank and file members, not to mention all those companies whose survival is based on industry contracts like delivery companies, craft services, etc. Just as during the WGA strike, there WILL be pressure from these groups to settle and, just like during the WGA strike, the union is likely to be a stronger target than the AMPTP, even though the latter organization is much more responsible for this stalemate than SAG.
Although tabling key issues until 2011 is very risky since precedents will already be set with the current contract, personally I’d focus on keeping the town working for now and begin laying the groundwork for major changes in the 2011 contract by educating and energizing the general membership about the issues and creating a unified front for 2011 not only within SAG, but also with AFTRA, the WGA and the DGA so that all of the talent unions work together to create a seismic shift in management/labor power with the next contract.
The AMPTP’s Divide and Conquer strategy has proven to be very effective with SAG. But a truly united SAG in concert with a united AFTRA, WGA and DGA would be unstoppable.
Just one observer’s semi-humble opinion…
Ace:
My apologies for only posting when I want to smack you, and not the significant majority of the time I agree with you. Mea culpa.
We need the stars in SAG. They absolutely don’t need us. The day stars break rank from SAG is the day SAG is over. Done. Gone. Destroyed. Stick a fork in us. So bless the Alec Baldwins of the world who are strongly against striking, but will hold the line with us if we do.
But I find the “no dog in the hunt” contrary to math. In addition to the zillions Will Smith earned for “I Am Legend,” he will also get exactly 10x the SAG residuals I make off Legend. “No dogs in the hunt?” Well, according to the math of residuals, the dude has 10 dogs in the residual hunt for every one of mine. It’s the call of Will and those like him whether that amount of money is meaningful to him: Not ours. Because the simple math in regard to film is that stars’ residuals will almost always surpass the SAG-contract entitled residuals each of the rest of us makes, and almost always to a large degree.
So yes, you said your point about excluding mega-earners was fascetious. Got it. But IMHO, us showing anything but the deepest gratitude for every star who would honor a strike and not go fi-core on us is a truly bad move.
I couldn’t care less about qualified voting. Bring it on. I’ll qualify every freakin’ year. And god forbid I don’t some year, that’s my problem. But right now, as you know, it’s every paid up member = one vote. I’m cool with that, and unless we start kicking sleeping stars on the matter, they are too. So all the stars combined power to vote on strike authorization is less than the extras on a single Will Farrel movie. Remember what Alec Baldwin posted about “beware” of treating stars like they don’t understand our concerns, or they don’t care about us. Because if our attitude toward them ever creates that reality, and stars break rank, the Screen Actors Guild will be no more. I did not understand or care for Alec saying “beware,” but upon seeing your post the tiny little light above my head came on.
Bless ‘em, and bless the system where our vote counts as much as those who could crush our car with the money they make in SAG residuals, regardless of whatever additional millions they earn per project.
Dude, they DO care, and that’s demonstrated by the fact that they don’t break rank. I assure you that if any box office opener agreed to shoot during the strike, producers would fill ALL other cast spots with non-union or scabs and get the cameras moving ASAP. The fact that they don’t is incredible, and we owe them for that.
So to every star who’s strongly against striking, but will not report to work if the membership at large authorizes it and the board feels there’s no choice but to call it … THANK YOU!!!
When did Tom Hanks lose his soul and become a douchebag? Don’t have to ask about Clooney. It was March 5 2005.
Joe,
17K? That’s less than my bar tab at the club. You need to give it up my friend. Seriously.
i’ll bet james brock is an AMPTP chump paid to do some posting.
move over is already happening.
the moguls have gone public with their intentions to do away with
residuals.
if residuals are diminished that will impact pension and welfare.
3 years could do alot of damage.
vote yes.
To any of the actors/stars/producers who signed onto the “nosagstrike” letter — I hope you guys read the following facts about the Final Offer:
By encouraging a No vote on the referendum, you are suggesting that you, a Union actor, will vote to allow Non-Union actors to work in NewMedia projects with a budget of under $15,000 per minute. (Current budgets are between $2,000 and $2,500):
Here are the 12 Outstanding Issues at a glance:
1. Union Contract Coverage in New Media:
If producer chooses, no original new media production costing less than $15,000 per minute would be covered by this contract’s terms.
(SAG – All new media prductions made by Amptp companies are covered by the TV/Theatrical Contract. We have proposed a tiered system, similar to our low budget feature contracts, which sets minimums per budget level.) We have already signed over 700 independent NM contracts, we have the formulas.
2. Residuals in New Media – No residuals for made for new media programs reused on ad-supported new media, meaning the program could run forever and never pay residuals.
(SAG- All new media productions should pay residuals, regardless of the exibition platform. Residuals paid on all programs used in new media.)Its th old, “If they make money, we make a bit; if they don’t, we don’t.”
3. Residuals for Programs Produced Prior to 1974 and Moved Over to New Media – No residuals to performers in programs produced prior to 1974.
(SAG – Library product from the past should pay residuals.) Think about the actors who started this business…a residual could mean they are covered for health care.
4. Product Integration – No notice, no consent by actor, no compensation for product integration, and no study either.
(SAG – Performers notified and, if they consent, are paid when requested to extol a product in scripted programming. A study of product integration trends should be conducted.) This is going to directly impact the Commercials contract coming up in March ‘09. I wonder how much Jim Carrey was paid to spout about RedBull in his latest film? But that is beside the point; he gets millions upfront. We are concerned about the middle class actor, getting scale, and being forced to promote a product without compensation, or else lose the job.
5. Background Actors – In Western background zones, adds 1 background actor, excluding 1 standin, to the TV coun and adds 2 background actors, INCLUDING all standins, to the theatrical count.
(SAG – Staring in the first contract year, exclude all standins from the count (AS THEY ARE ON EAST OOAST JJOBS), while increasing BG numbers by 2, then by 3 more in the second year, and by 3 additional in the last year. Additional background zone in New Mexico.)
6. Stunt Cooordinators’ TV Residuals – NO residuals for TV stunt coordinators
(SAG – Residuals for stunt Coordinators.)
7. DVD Residuals – No increase in DVD residuals
(SAG – P&H contributions paid on top of the current DVD formula, thereby increasing the formula 15%)
They said we would “revisit” this formula years ago, remember?
8. Force Majeure – Cuts force majeure provisions (protecting actor’s pay) from our contract, making individual actors bargain this seperately.
(SAG – Preserve the Force Majeure provisions of the contract that have protected actors’ pay for decades.) This is another Rollback – And currently, none of the force majeure money has been paid to actors for the WGA strike, somewhere between $60 and $400 million dollars.
9. Union Security in New Media – Performers engaged to work on a covered new media productin would not be required to become a member of the Guild in good standing untill they worked for at least ninety (yes, 90) days.
(SAG – The current contract says that membership cannot be required of a performer by a producer as a condition of employment until thirty (30) days after first employment.) Goodbye Taft-Hartly
10. Mileage – No increase. Current reimbursement rate has not changed for 30 years.
(IRS reimbursement is 58.5 cents/mile. SAG is asking for and increase from 30 cents/mile to 40 cents/mile.)
11. Major Role Premium – Increase from 7.5% to 10%
(SAG is asking for an increase to 13%)
12. French Hours, Motion Pictures Only – On a vote of the cast present on the First Day of Principal photography, “french hours” would be instituted, meaning there is no designated meal break and performers eat when thy can.
(SAG- Rejects this Rollback to eliminate scheduled meal times.)
Danny and Rhea have suggested that in three years all the Guild contracts will be up at roughly the same time. Not true. The Amptp does not agree to Guild contracts being co-terminus. SAG is already a year away from WGA; they made their deal in early 08. We are almost into early ’09. Nothing says that our agreement will be retroactive. WGA didn’t get it.
And what makes you think that all of a sudden all the guilds will be singing kumbaya in three years? The DGA had a chance to do that during the WGA job action, and they chose to cave, as did Aftra. THAT was the time to get together. But IMO everyone is just looking out for themselves, and not looking down the line to the next generation.
You guys will be able to make your upfront money, while middleclass, supporting actors with whom you work will fall away, because our life-line, residuals, will no longer be there. This is the truth of what this deal is. If you sign off on it, we will not be able to “renegotiate” in three years….It never happened with the basic-cable formula, the VHS HomeVideo formula, or DVD residuals. What makes you think New Media is any different?
his collective bargaining agreement deals with minimums – something that middle class actors are now getting paid – scale, and scale + 10%. Yep, your supporting players are offered entry level wages, even if they have been in the business for 30 years, as I have.
I am mystified as to why you are not standing with your Guild. I know you must remember your first residual check. Your first job above scale. Being 6th on the callsheet. Moving up the ladder. Your first job playing opposite a big star. Moving from a Honeywagon to a TwoBanger. Getting your first “offer” – not having to audition. Being 2nd on the callsheet, then first. Getting your first nomination. Negotiating bumps for nominations. Negotiating more upfront money instead of backend. Standing in the Winner’s Circle. There are thousands of your fellows who look up to you, admire what you do, hoping for the lucky break that you got.
You stood with the WGA when they were on strike, please stand with the actors you work with every day.
Send the elevator back down, please.
Please go to http://www.sag.org and get the facts. They’re all there.
Kudos to Frances Fisher
Again, she puts it out there in detail, minus the rhetoric, the name calling, the distortions, etc. (unlike me. I’m a big fan of name calling).
You read it, and at least I feel as I felt last Monday night in NY after Doug Allen finished his power point opening remarks and I turned to the woman next to me and said “why exactly are we here?”
The choice is crystal clear if you remove the anti-strike authorization “statements of the obvious.” As valid and heartfelt as “a strike would be devastating” arguments are, they, in my mind at least, are completely trumped by what’s coming if SAG actors don’t vote up a strike authorization.
If producers, when confronted with, that still flip us the bird, then, we gotta do what we gotta do. Nobody is “pro-strike.” It’s a fake argument by the “vote ‘no’ on the strike authorization” people, and by the “stars” who should be ashamed of themselves for signing the “vote ‘no’ list.”
Their behavior and uninformed stance is in direct opposition to the critical needs of their so-called “union brothers and sisters,” and their blaming of Alan Rosenberg and Doug Allen for “failure of leadership” or “incompetence” is ignorant of the facts of how we got here and how little, in fact, it had to do with either man.
It had, and has, EVERYTHING to do with the fact the AMPTP never negotiated in good faith with SAG, they never intended to going in, they never wanted to during those long gaps between meetings with the AMPTP, and they surely don’t now. The only thing the producers are waiting for, is to see if SAG actors have the balls to call their bluff and vote up the strike authorization.
THEN, the AMPTP has a very, very, dicey decision to make. A strike will devastate them, and they know it. As bad as it will be for us, it will be just as bad, or worse, for them.
Do I want to walk around in a fucking circle in NY city in February? Fuck no. But, if you have the common sense to understand that, if we don’t get these protections now, we are NEVER getting them, then you better be ready to walk.