A&E IndieFilms Sets ‘Happy Valley,’ … 
Hot Cannes Property: Natalie Portman, Lynne Ramsay Team On … 
Brad Pitt Hits Cannes With ‘Killing Them … 
Longtime TV Exec Rod Perth Named NATPE President & CEO 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘House’ Ends Run On High-Ish … 
Does Cable News Clarify Or Confuse The Public’s … 
Mark Burnett’s Company Launches Scripted Unit, Taps … 
‘Mary Mother Of Christ’ In Lionsgate Deal 
Icon UK Group Joins ‘The Butler’; Forest … 
Best Buy Shares Up Pre-Market As Q1 Earnings Beat Estimates 
HBO Developing Comedy Series Starring Catherine Keener And … 
Will ‘Paperboy’ Heat Domestic Buying At Cannes? … 
Millennium Films Buys Spec Thriller ‘Playing … 
Will ‘American Idol’s’ Jessica Sanchez … 
Legendary’s Thomas Tull Among Just 3 Contenders … 
Harvey Weinstein Unveils ‘The Master’, … 
CBS’ ‘Rules Of Engagement’ Renewed For … 
Facebook Shares Fall Below Offering Price Even As Market … 
UTA Signs ‘Intouchables’ Star Omar Sy 
Weather Wreaks Havoc In Cannes; Wind Damage Forces … 
Cable Execs Warn That Dish Network’s Ad-Zapping DVR … 
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.
- SAG Splitsville: Star Actors vs Star Actors
- Stars Urge “No” Vote To Authorize Strike
- Stars Sign Onto SAG ‘Solidarity Campaign’
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
I notice all the YES people still can’t do anything except insult people who disagree with them.
The best thing blivit can come up with in response to some very serious points is to call me a “chump,” and then accuse me of being a shill for the AMPTP? Honestly? Is this guy in high school or something? Alright. Keep that up. Let’s see how far that gets you. About as far as you have already gotten, I assume. Weren’t you the one complaining on another thread about NO people being beligerent? Contradict yourself much?
That’s why this vote will not pass ultimately, because too many YES people aren’t listening to anyone else. It’s the same people saying the same thing. They don’t seem to realize that they comprise a minority. A vocal one, but a minority just the same. There are entirely valid points that they just refuse to answer, take into account or even simply acknowledge. They’ve created this echo chamber and refuse to accept any opinion which differs from their own. The numbers AREN’T THERE and, in the end, we’ll be in a worse position than we are now. The only people who support this are the “Membership First” crowd. So unless you believe that “Membership First” comprises 75% of the membership — which they certainly do not — then you have to admit that this resolution is going down to a crushing defeat. What is left of our bargaining powers will be in tatters and we’ll be at the mercy of AMPTP.
Strategy matters to everyone except SAG. We have a bunch of school-yard thugs running things.
These people running SAG are the most self-destructive people I have ever seen. It’s too bad that they are hell bent on bringing everyone else down with them.
Vote NO, change our negotiating team and let’s get a real contract in 2011.
It’s our only hope.
I agree with James Brock.
“The “yes” side is inherently stupid for this reason”
Let’s just agree that there’s a lot of “pot calling the kettle black” here, O.K. “James Brock?”
You go off on blivit, but when I look at your post he was responding to, I find you calling all voting “yes” “stupid.”
So, please can it on:
“I notice all the YES people still can’t do anything except insult people who disagree with them.”
I notice you’re a hypocritical asshole.
So, let’s call the “insult” thing a draw, shall we?
Tensions are high feelings are raw – get over it.
—————————-
Let me answer a few of your “very serious points” O.K.?
“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 receive all the concessions they’ve always demanded without losing anything in return.”
This isn’t exactly a substantive observation, but I would respond by saying, you seriously misunderstand the “yes” sentiment. The “yes” people are voting for ONE thing and ONE thing only: a strike AUTHORIZATION. That gives our negotiators the power to confront the AMPTP with the ACTUAL threat of a strike. IF the AMPTP has, in fact, any internal wiggle-room, or disagreement behind the scenes as to whether they are all IN FACT unified in allowing SAG to strike, this is the ONLY way to find that out.
Of course, if they don’t, the final decision goes back to the national board which is no longer controlled by Membership First. If they say, strike, we strike.
————————————
“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 receive from the internet will make up for the lost income actors will incur from a strike. We all come out losers, either way.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “below the line” actors. That’s a term applied to crew (below the line) but, nonetheless, this is not about the next six months, it’s about the next 30 years. Any residuals lost due to a work stoppage, would have to originate from jobs you can’t book, because we’re on strike, and there are no SAG auditions for TV/Theatrical jobs.
However, if we sign this contract, what’s already happening in terms of losing residuals, will intensify, and, soon enough, residuals will no longer exist for SAG actors in TV/Theatrical jobs.
THAT loss FAR outweighs any short term loss of work DURING an actual strike.
Again – a NOW example: I spoke to a woman a few days ago whose husband is a regular on the NBC hour drama “Life.” NBC has not run a SINGLE rerun of “Life” on the network – ever. ALL have run on the net. So, do the math:$3,300 vs. Zero in residuals. He gets his weekly salary, but no residual. That’s an example of how RIGHT NOW the producers are just beginning to extensively cut the compensation to middle-class actors.
It’s already happening NOW. Signing this contract will make it precedent for the first time, and permanent.
————————————-
“There is absolutely nothing to be gained here for actors by striking.”
————————————
Well, that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what’s at stake. Residuals are being phased out and this contract will make that permanent. That’s what’s at stake.
———————————–
“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.”
———————————-
This, of course, depends on if you actually believe the AMPTP will “revisit” or “renegotiate” in three years.
What SAG is asking for is entirely fair, and simple. It is now – it will be in three years. It will be in thirty years.
A percentage formula:
producer makes 100 million on new media project? SAG gets X%
producer makes 100 DOLLARS on new media project? SAG gets EXACT SAME x%
producer LOSES money on new media project? producer has NO FIXED obligation to SAG
That, of course, allows producers all the “flexibility” to “experiment” they need. The reason they won’t consider such an easy solution is:
A. they have no intention of including actors in new media residuals
B. They have no intention of opening themselves up to the transparency a percentage of distributor’s gross formula, such as above, would require. There would be verifiable “hits” and both sides could follow the money. The AMPTP would be forced to do business in an honest manner. This terrifies them for the simple reason that they have no experience with that business model (honesty)
————-
If, in fact, your name is “James Brock” – my guess is (name true or not) you are quite young. Lucky you. but here’s the deal James: this require long-term thinking, and, since there is NO precedent for the AMPTP “revisiting” or “renegotiating” once they get such a huge concession in writing, and beginning to milk that profit stream for all it’s worth – if we fail to nail down this contract with SAG hard-wired into their profit stream in ALL new media, SAG as a union that effectively represents the needs of middle-class actors, not just “stars” (about… 5% of the union? Probably closer to 3%) will be over.
Think it over, and, in my humble opinion, if you want a future as an actor, you may have to go through a tough time the next year or so, but if you WANT ANY future, vote “YES.”
Mr. Brock -
The make-up of SAG’s negotiating team is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to the current status of the negotiations, as the other side – the moguls – have essentially refused to negotiate.
Changing the personnel sitting in the chairs opposite the moguls will do absolutely nothing to change that.
Putting off this fight for three years would put SAG in the even-less-enviable position of having already acceded to the AMPTP’s “well-established framework” this year. That framework is what the moguls will work with over the next two decades or more as they migrate their content distribution to the Internet as quickly as they possibly can, and deny SAG and the other creative guilds a residual structure even close to what they’ve been paying on old media.
The moguls have drawn the line in the sand THIS YEAR. They are demanding HUGE rollbacks from actors, not just on this contract, but over the next two decades or more. We don’t have the luxury of having this fight three years from now. The fight will be over, and we will have lost. And what we will have lost is our creative guild as a force of good in our industry and a bulwark of protection for actors.
The AMPTP has put SAG’s back to the wall and a gun to the temple of the actors. The only thing the AMPTP respects is force. We have to force them to come around, first by giving SAG leadership the tool of a credible threat to withdraw our labor through a strike authorization. If that’s not enough to get them to take us seriously, we need to pick up our picket signs.
SAG leadership has been calm, professional, and patient to the point of long-suffering throughout this entire extended process. The current impasse was engineered by and is the conscious choice of the other side. So far, we actors have been carrying a pen knife to a gunfight. It’s time to give President Rosenberg some real weaponry to carry into the battle.
James Brock and like thinkers:
Per your words, if strike authorization doesn’t pass, “then you have to admit that this resolution is going down to a crushing defeat. What is left of our bargaining powers will be in tatters and we’ll be at the mercy of AMPTP.”
Look. Strike authorization ballot is going to go out. And I personally fail to know how to reach anybody who believes that a 26% no vote will equal “tattered bargaining power” and leave us at the mercy of the AMPTP, so they then plan on voting no(!!!). WTF?!
Me personally? I’ve listened, and I have yet to hear the factual basis is for believing 1) we’d be stronger in 2011; 2) the economy would be better in 2011; 3) Why it matters at all if the economy is better, since strike strength is calculated by potential damage of one side holding out versus the other; 4) Exactly how it is we can even get NY SAG and LA SAG together in three years, let alone the WGA, the DGA, or anybody else.
We’ve tried for 22 years, through various administrations of varying political philosophies to do anything but suck dirt on DVD residuals, after putting our mouth on the dirt pile in the first place. That strategy proved to be disasterous. So I’ll listen with open ears just as somebody explains to me the actual factual basis of a blind hope that somehow we’re going to repeat the same act with new media expecting a different result, and somehow how that’s going to work out for us.
An unmet need to hear well-reasoned analysis based on historical precedent should simply not be confused with “not listening.” Sorry. We tried the “suck dirt now, and make it back later” approach and got reemed. Blind faith is no substitute for the factual rationale of believing doing the same thing this time won’t yield exactly the same result.
Like you, I believe the results of a “no” vote are pretty nasty too. That’s why I will vote “yes.” The only thing I plan on voting “no” on is IF this current “take this offer and shove it” contract is put up. If we let the bell ring as outlined in Frances’ bullet points, there’s no historical precedent in our union of which I’m aware which would suggest we can unring it later.
Well, “Matt Mulhern,” (if that’s you real name), I am entitled to my opinion just as you are entitled to yours. Okay, “Matt Mulhern”?
Again, we get the same three to four people come out and attack someone for doing nothing more than disagree with them. I must have a lot of nerve to disagree with the great “Matt Mulhern,” (if that’s even your real name).
When all is said and done “Matt Mulhern,” don’t forget that you need 75% support to even get a strike authorization passed. I know of no one outside the “Membership First” kabal, and its usual list of supporters, who are in favor of this. I guarantee you you don’t have the support of 75% of the union as a whole. When you fail, and you will, you will have nothing left to bargain with. It’ll be over. Ultimately, your failure will reflect on all of us and put the rest of us in an even worse position.
The problem is, and always has been, that I see you and your friends doing a lot of preaching to the choir and needless villification of the non-believers, “Matt Mulhern,” but I don’t see too much convincing going on. I see even less listening going on. You just can’t seem to accept that there are valid reasons to be against a strike. It doesn’t make people disloyal or evil.
Just keep that in mind.
I’ll leave you now to play with the rest of your friends, “Matt Mulhern,” (if that’s your real name).
P.S. When I wrote that the yes side was “inherently stupid,” which I still believe, I was not speaking of people who support the yes side being stupid. I was writing about the position of supporting a strike given that it’s a lose-lose situation for us, a fool’s bargain.
P.P.S. I suppose I must have touched a nerve to attract so much attention to poor little James Brock by all the regulars here, and yes that is my real name.
Vote NO.
I agree with every argument made so far as to why the current AMPTP contract offer is crappy and how important the issues are.
But the real issue here is the balance of power and leverage. Because the only thing the AMPTP seems to understand is power and they’re determined to strengthen theirs.
If SAG is to prevail, they need to demonstrate a committed, united front combined with broad support from not only other industry guilds and unions, as well as the advertising community, Wall Street and the general public – much the way the WGA operated a year ago.
My concern is whether or not SAG leadership truly has that breadth and depth of committed support to give them the leverage needed to strike something even close to a fair deal. If the strike authorization vote fails, what leverage does SAG have?
So again, I’m not looking at this from the point of what’s right and fair. That’s a given and SAG has my support to do everything they can to protect their members’ livelihoods now and in the future.
The question is simply – what can SAG leadership do to effectively convince the AMPTP bosses that this present intransigence is counter-productive? Between their 120,000 members, their sister talent guilds, the below the line unions and everyone else involved, can they muster enough support and anti-management anger to give them the leverage they need to make a deal on this contract – or would they be better off with a white flag now “in the interest of getting the industry back to work in this tough economic market” while laying the groundwork for what may become the WWIII of labor disputes in 2011 with across the board industry support and, more importantly, SAG membership unity.
Because, as hard as it is likely to be getting the AMPTP to play ball on these key issues in 2011 will be one way or the other, it will be a lot worse if they have to re-negotiate those issues because they had to eat a bad contract now due to a failed strike authorization vote.
I can cut and paste as well
to Frances Fisher
Points one and two are well taken and I believe they are valid but the rest are just smoke.
Point 3 just how many times can a performance be paid for and how many people will watch something made before 74 anyway.
point 4 how can you take the leap of faith and say that this provision will affect commercials. red blue does their ads with animation and voiceovers at least from what I see. Jim Carrey is not going to get core drinkers of that crap to by more and red bull might even hire him to hawk it in Japan. Product integration pays for part of the production, it may pay you. besides I’ll seen stars say no on the set and guess what it was no.
point 5 and 6 Since when did the the guild care for those two groups in the first place
point 7 no one has gotten an increase in dvds and where in contract language does it say that they will revisit it. Show me in any contract. you see that’s the great myth here. What promise was made ,was it verbal. Verbal is not binding.
Point 8 Force Majeure wasn’t it your guild that said that the WGA strike was Sags as well. Shouldn’t you suffer the same fate that the rest suffered no pay for no work. The truth is that under contract your owed that money and they will pay it. The only question is how much your leaders are willing to sell out to keep the provision. As far as I know this may have been the second time they would have to pay. On top of that it’s a civil matter. Trot out the lawyers.
point 9 Taft Hartly is a federal law that no contract can get around. The IA did it for years until it was challenge, It didn’t even go to court. The Amptp got rid of it . Just ask Nick he’ll tell you. Its a non starter they know it and you know it.
point 10 I agree that mileage should be increased,with the price of gas the car and insurance it should be 60 cent. only fair, but my question is do the non union extras get 60 cents because it a contract provision and they are non union therefore not covered.
point 11 Is that for the whole contract life or is it for each year. If it’s for each year you guys made out. The IA get 3 percent a year that’s 9 percent over three years. Dga ads get 3 percent as well. Please be clear about this.
point 12 All it takes is one actor in a secret ballot to say no, plus you would have to get the crew to say yes for it to work. I’ve worked on one french hours show and was paid meal penalty in the end. The producer didn’t adhere to the food rules. Maybe a non starter.
So we have what see 3 points of contention over that your willing to go out on strike. I’m shaking head here.
I hope this gets printed at least for the sake of balance on this blog.
Witness to Insanity
Reasonable. Wrong, but reasonable…
See, “let’s wait 3 years for World War III” is the part that I don’t get. I mean, it’s simple logic, to me anyway, that, if you go to war, you do it in a methodical, measured way, based upon the support of the people, the evidence at hand, and the issues at stake.
Despite the “don’t send out the SAV,” “Rosenberg is delusional,” “this is insane,” “the economy is in tatters,” zaniness, last time I checked, Rosenberg and Allen were following the votes of the membership, the national board and the negotiating committee.
Can anyone say different? Not if they’re being honest. All this shrieking and wobbling, and, for what? Just send out the damn SAV, as was approved by the national board and the negotiating committee’s votes.
If it passes, it passes. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t.
Let’s get on with it.
—————-
And “James Brock” “if that’s YOU real name”
Yes, I am me. You’re welcome to your opinion, as I am to mine, “James Brock.”
james brock wins again! clear thinking, logical and only debating the issues not the personalities wins every time as james proves again.
so strike if you must, because there will be no network tv for sag members any longer. which means no residuals, which means no more health care. ALL new shows will be AFTRA-it has already been decided and some but not all features will go AFTRA as well. I’ve been in the studio meetings and the die is cast. Sure go ahead and strike. The btl crews will continue to work, writers will write, directors will direct and actors will act. It just won’t be with SAG. The public wont know the difference. No one will say, ” hmmm looks like an aftra show”. No they will just watch it just like they always have. Then years from now you can opine bitterly about how the amptp broke sag and how you had to join aftra to book a gig. You can abscond from any and all responsibility on sags leadership, but it won’t matter because that union doesn’t exist anymore.
Matt,
I think you and I may be more in sync than your subject line would suggest.
You wrote, “it’s simple logic, to me anyway, that, if you go to war, you do it in a methodical, measured way, based upon the support of the people, the evidence at hand, and the issues at stake.”
This is exactly my point. Calling a strike is a declaration of war. To win that war, SAG leadership needs mucho leverage including “the support of the people”.
Personally I hope Rosenberg and Allen get a 90% approval from the membership similar to the WGA’s strike authorization. And I hope, if they get it, that their membership has the fortitude to stick out what is likely to be a lengthy walkout because we already know how inflexible Nick Counter and his colleagues are in the key issues.
My question remains, do they have the across the board support needed to both authorize and then stick out a prolonged strike in this time of economic upheaval? If they do, great!
The issues are critical and important to fight for. But if they don’t have that leverage and support, as I’ve said repeatedly in this thread, they could well be screwing themselves by calling for an SAV.
My buddy and I have had an employment deal pending with a studio for over a year. But because of first the WGA strike and now SAG, that job offer continues to be on hold and my friend and I continue to search for alternate employment until the contract is finally settled. And still I support and applaud the members of both guilds for standing up for issues well worth fighting for, even if it means going on strike.
Because I’m rooting for SAG to ultimately prevail, like the scene in “The Godfather” where Michael Corleone is about to shoot Solazzo and the corrupt police captain, I want to know that SAG leadership can come out “with more than just their dicks in their hands.”
’nuff said
james brock wins again! clear thinking, logical and only debating the issues not the personalities wins every time as james proves again.
so strike if you must, because there will be no network tv for sag members any longer. which means no residuals, which means no more health care. ALL new shows will be AFTRA-it has already been decided and some but not all features will go AFTRA as well. I’ve been in the studio meetings and the die is cast. Sure go ahead and strike. The btl crews will continue to work, writers will write, directors will direct and actors will act. It just won’t be with SAG. The public wont know the difference. No one will say, ” hmmm looks like an aftra show”. No they will just watch it just like they always have. Then years from now you can opine bitterly about how the amptp broke sag and how you had to join aftra to book a gig. You can abscond from any and all responsibility on sags leadership, but it won’t matter because that union doesn’t exist anymore.
Thanks for a great article, Nikki.
So many actors I’ve spoken with don’t have clue about the union contract.
They really need to get boned up instead of listening to producer Tom Hanks (who says he’s an actor).
The studios tricked the actors the first with lousy DVD residuals and now they want to trick them again with lousy Movie Downloads (which is a very powerful commodity).
I also hope SAG gets 90% on the vote because then it won’t be Alan Rosenberg and Doug Allen taking us out on strike, It will be NY and the Branch’s along with the 5 USF members that will, as they are the ones who now control the National Board. No wonder they are trying so hard to stop the vote in the first place.
For those who don’t remember who USF are, they were the ones behind the attempt to take away the right to vote from thier fellow members.
I understand the shortcomings of the last best offer. I understand SAGs interpretation of the contract as a compact to diminish the union. I know what’s at stake and I understand all the reasons Rosenberg et al believe they need the authorization. But no one has offered an idea of how a strike will achieve a betterment of terms. No one has talked about how long we may need to strike. Obviously AR and DA have thought about this scenario and likely have very definite ideas about the practical aspects of calling a strike and enduring one. Do they see a strike as inevitable? Do they believe a strike will force the AMPTP into sweetening the deal? Why? How long could that take? How long are we willing to stick it out? They’ve studied labor disputes carefully. They offered some of this analysis when they addressed managers and agents so I assume they’ve got some ballpark figure in mind when they contemplate the very real possibility of striking.
They’d probably consider these questions premature since they claim only to be seeking authorization at this point. But if they get it and the AMPTP doesn’t flinch, then what? Do they believe that authorization gives SAG meaningful leverage to lure the AMPTP back to the table? Does anyone? I think a yes vote for authorization is a yes vote to strike and as a member, I’d like to hear some discussion about this before members are asked to vote on authorization.
Unfortunately the vote “NO” list has no way to verify names. C’mon Nikki why post a link to this bogus list after you took down the other bogus list.
Well, you do have to check a box that says “I am a SAG member.”
Have at it folks. Sign up with your fake names–or better use the names of an actual actor . I just signed on as GARY SINESE. Let’s see how quick it goes up.
The vote “YES” list requires your SAG member number so perhaps they are doing cross checking on that side. I’m going back to “NO” and I’ll add the names of some actors who have passed on. “Bury me in Jersey City, I want to remain active in politics.”
cj writes, “I’d like to hear some discussion about this before members are asked to vote on authorization.”
One way to get more info. would be to attend SAG informational meetings. The questions you ask are relevant, but it’s not in the best interest of the Guild to publicly publish their stats as far as we are ready to strike but only for 60 days then we’ll call it quits.
That give the adversary too much information. It’s a shame but the negotiations for any contract, by a union or even an individual in a job interview are something of a card game. In a perfect world we could say $X is fair and the AMPTP would say “You’re right.”
Instead the AMPTP says FU we’re cutting your pay in half by eliminating residuals. SAG can either say OK or get a strike vote. An individual can say I doubled the profits of this company in a year, I need a raise or I’m gonna have to find other employment.
Will they get the raise or not? Well you can’t know till you ask. Then the scenario plays out.
There is some strike info up on sites like Sag.org and on youtube. But it is more what the contract means to actors rather than what negotiating strategy SAG has in mind.
Well, cj, the discussion on the authorization vote has been going on for months – you seem new to the party. You have a lot of pertinent questions, for most of which there are no answers because nobody knows – it hasn’t run its course yet.
But before we get to an actual strike, you (and all SAG members) need to completely understand that it’s the authorization to call a strike that is our leverage – which is what we’ll be voting on.
Passing a strike authorization is a two-tiered leverage “weapon”.
The first step is letting the moguls know that we have the power to strike if they continue to stonewall us with this obscene offer. If they stand quietly in the corner and refuse to bargain with us, then our NegCom (negotiating committee) must make the decision to enact stage two of the weapon – the strike itself. Which nobody wants to occur, and which would not be automatically enacted. The NegCom has to discuss it first and decide, based on the situation at the time, how and when to strike.
This is what the AMPTP fears most – that they’ll have to either deal fairly with us (which is easy, cost-effective and simply the right thing to do) or force us into a work stoppage, which would be on their hands, not SAG’s.
None of us, save for the AMPTP itself, knows if a strike authorization will get them to discard this POS contract offer and do the right thing, or if they’ll choose to continue playing brinkmanship and daring us to do what we must.
They say that it won’t matter – that passing a strike authorization won’t change their offer. But what they say and what they do are turning out to be two very different things. The AMPTP bluffing (some call it outright “lying”) about their position is transparent when you look at all of the money they’re spending to sway the authorization vote in their favor.
Many of us who are voting ‘Yes’ feel that with the leverage of a strike authorization, the moguls will have no other rational choice than to deal with SAG in a fair way – no matter what they say now. And remember that “truthful” isn’t in their vocabulary. This is all just business decisions to them, hoping to increase their fat bottom line profits by not paying SAG what we’re due.
Your best information will come from SAG.org. Look to your elected leaders for the truth of what the AMPTP is attempting to do to us. I urge you and all SAG members to invest some real time and look at both sides of this very important issue before voting. Your future as a working actor depends on it.
In solidarity,
SAG has to start convincing people who aren’t part of their usual list of MF supporters. That is your achilles heel here. You have to start listening to what others are saying, even those who disagree with you. You need to consider their position carefully and appreciate the fact that these feelings are prevelant among many SAG members. What you do instead, is revert to talking points, insults and innuendos. There are plenty of people inside this union who don’t agree with this decision, and worse, who don’t trust the people in charge of leading them into a strike. That’s something you just have to deal with.
I think the most honest response so far came from ‘Justice and Fair Play’ who said that most of the actor friends s/he has don’t even know what’s in the contract.
Do you honestly think these people are going to vote to authorize a strike now and put any chance of work in peril? How about the New York faction, and its members, will they vote yes? How about all the other non-Hollywood SAG members, are you convincing them? How about the Unite For Strength members, on what side will they come out on?
Given the propensity of Membership First types to talk down to those who disagree with them and just disregard their opinions outright, I seriously doubt that 50% of SAG support this, much less 75%.
After all, don’t forget that we held an election just two months ago where the Unite For Strength faction convincingly defeated Membership First and took a majority of the seats on the board.
I seriously doubt those same UFS supporters have suddenly had a change of heart about MF and have decided to now follow them into a prolonged strike. It’s foolish, at best, to think so.
Unfortunately, people here like Matt Mulhern, Ace, Justine Bateman and the rest of them can’t see the forest from the trees and create a false dichotomy for everyone. I support the aims SAG has presented here, as i’m sure most do, but I seriously doubt they have the support (within the industry, the public or even among actors themselves) to go man-to-man with the producers/studios here. Ultimately, this is why they are destined to fail. Understand this, a strike is not an end in it of itself, it is a means to an end. I don’t think these people have any clue what they will do once they go on strike. I think they only hope that the other side will cave. Failing that, well, SAG will be forced into a massive and humiliating retreat and its members will recieve nothing in return for the sacrifice of giving up their jobs and income for whatever the duration of the strike will be.
This is a redux of Bush with Iraq. You MF supporters won’t admit this, or even like to hear this, but it’s true. He wanted to go to war so badly that he never gave any thought to how to “win” the war once he got what he wanted and look how that turned out.
This is about poor planning. This is about a poor strategy.
In the final analysis, this is all really a tragedy in the classical sense of the word. It’s a tragedy where everyone can see the negative final outcome except the persons involved because they are too close. Most people can see that even if SAG gets what it wants and strikes, it will still lose. The truest tragedy of all is that they’re willing to bring everyone else down with them.
VOTE NO.
Yeah, I just checked with two friends on the “NO”. One said he never gave his name to either side and when I steered him to the link, he said all the principals on his show were listed as signers including himself. He knew he hadn’t signed and said he wouldn’t. He surmised they just took the cast list from the show and printed the name without anyone’s permission. Other friend said he did indeed sign the NO petition because he wants to keep his job on “It’s always Sunny in Philidelphia.”. In other names at a glance I saw William Mapother is on both the YES and NO list. B-O-G-U-S!
zackery wrote: Other friend said he did indeed sign the NO petition because he wants to keep his job on “It’s always Sunny in Philidelphia.”.
Your friend should reread his contract. Sunny is a AFTRA show.
Ace, yes, the discussion on the authorization has been going on for months and I don’t need to be further edified as to what’s at stake or how a strike authorization will be wielded. The fact that you “feel” a strike authorization vote will leave the AMPTP, “no other rational choice than to deal with SAG in a fair way”, is not relevant. What are you basing this feeling on? Just because you interpret the AMPTPs efforts to sway the authorization vote as an indication that they’re bluffing does not make it so. Why exactly, other than your feelings about it, do you think authorization will give us leverage? And do you personally believe that AR and DA truly expect authorization to have an effect? I haven’t heard anyone explain HOW or WHY authorization is meant to give us leverage other than to hear them tell us simply that it just will. Most of the discussion on SAG.com seems to portray an attitude that we must give authorization, regardless.
If all we’ve got going into this is moral certitude, then I don’t think it’s too much to ask for our leaders to be forthcoming with regards to exactly what we may be in for and how a strike can help us achieve our goals. Telling us we have no other choice is a very weak position.
Yosemite-
Yes, of course AFTRA. I think his point was the show is produced Danny DeVito, a proponent of the NO vote. He’s trying to keep his boss happy thereby keeping his job. My bad. I guess I left out that fact.
No middle class Actor is going to sign the Yes list in fear of retaliation. And as far as the NO side goes — all kissing Butt hoping to get a job. The only true answer will be the results from the SAG membership Voting. So until then we can all wait and see . . .
Danny DeVito isn’t a producer on “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.” It’s just a straight acting job.