Tonight’s SAG Town Hall: Of the 40 Speakers, 80% “Yes”, 15% “Undecided”, 5% “No” On Strike Authorization Vote

COMMENTS (18)

• Whichever side you’re on, VOTE! At the very least, let’s have a result that legitimately represents the membership at large. VOTE!

  Comment by RJ — Wednesday December 17, 2008 @ 11:49pm PST  Reply to this post

• First let me say I believe in your cause. I’m an IATSE member almost 30 years. IATSE, remember us? The below the line guys who fought with blood to gain rights from the money hungry moguls all those years back.
  We fought for living wages . The option is very simple. If you are all that sure, call all your SAG actors working, right now. Tell them not to show up for work, excuse me, miss their call time to make up. Have them shun the business until SAG’s demands are met. No? Going to wait another month or two posturing, perhaps?
  It is easy to pound one’s chest in the anonymity of a blog of how important and threatening one can be. But I suppose SAG will just draw this out until the 08-09 season is done. Then maybe picket during the summer months when the shows are down, nicer weather too.
  If SAG grew a pair of balls and did something courageous, like walk off all the shows they are on now, then they will survive. Otherwise, you are playing into the hands of the people controlling the business and will find yourselves with a new doctrine to work from. As we all will.

  Comment by Bryan — Thursday December 18, 2008 @ 12:28am PST  Reply to this post

• Rah, rah , rah, go, strike, go – another feel good session for King Alan and his court. So will Alan keep his promise and sent the ballots out on the 2nd? Or is he still afraid he will lose. Of course if he wins, EVERYONE ELSE loses (jobs, houses, savings, health hours). 75% sure seems real steep uphill right about now. Still voting NO!

  Comment by Bill — Thursday December 18, 2008 @ 1:07am PST  Reply to this post

• Why is it that the people who want to vote “no” try and make this about Alan Rosenberg’s “personality” instead of the CONTRACT??? Could it be because if they talked about the strike/no strike in terms of the issues they would have no leg to stand on? Once you understand the issues there is no rational vote other than YES. BTW, Alan and Doug have displayed heroic personalities.

  Comment by Simon — Thursday December 18, 2008 @ 5:05am PST  Reply to this post

• SAG’s growing “enemies list” – AMPTP, AFTRA, IATSE, New York SAG, Chicago SAG, former president Mazur, former president Mellissa Gilbert, the LA Times, Hollywood Reporter, VAriety and now …750 of their own stars.

  Future enemies – public opinion, creditors (when they bleed SAG dry) and of course anyone who disagrees with their failed policies.

  Comment by Tom — Thursday December 18, 2008 @ 7:19am PST  Reply to this post

• hey everybody: look–it’s a comment by somebody using their actual name! wow, it’s almost like i back my opinion up in the real world too!!! i know, i know, anonymous sniping is much braver, so please, go to it.

  the only actual point i wanted to make is simple: every person who calls the studio side of this negotiation “the producers” should be slapped in the head with a rotten fish. the two sides are SAG and GIANT MULTINATIONAL CONGLOMERATES AND THEIR SENIOR EXECUTIVES. i’m a producer. no one is asking me or my colleagues for our two cents. rupert murdoch is not a producer, nor is chernin. sumner redstone and his advisors: not producers. bob iger does not equal producer. kirk kerkorian has been disinproducificated.

  its sort of semantics but its sort of embarrassing that people use the language from the era of jack warner or lew wasserman today. stop it. producers have no dog in this fight–we just want everyone to work this out so we can continue to try to get movies made and people paid.

  Comment by robert green — Thursday December 18, 2008 @ 7:35am PST  Reply to this post

• Brandi W.– It takes a special kind of person to persecute someone for how they practice their religious beliefs.

  Comment by PB — Thursday December 18, 2008 @ 8:38am PST  Reply to this post

• I hate to say this, but…I think some SAG members are gung ho for a work stoppage because they want to feel part of something momentous. A lot of SAG members have no forward career movement, no viable option for making a living or saving for retirement, and they get no respect.

  But if you stir up these emotions and tell them that they can make a STAND, that they can have their ‘On the Waterfront’ moment by walking a picket line, that the can make a difference…they will jump at it.

  Obviously, this is not everyone in SAG…but I personally think it describes quite a few.

  Comment by paloma Pigeon — Thursday December 18, 2008 @ 9:22am PST  Reply to this post

• You know, NY has the rep as the tough town, LA the flakes. At least in this instance, it’s the exact opposite. The LA people seem to “get it.” They may not like it, but at least they understand the harsh reality: the AMPTP is making a play to fundamentaly alter the way actors are paid, and not to the benefit of the actor (of course).

  LA understands the tech side of it with clarity and foresight, NY does not. They may say they do, but the simple fact NY was so hostile the other night displayed a certain ignorance that, no matter how good it felt to get up there and blast away at Rosenberg and Allen, this fight really has very little to do with either man, except to the extent that both know what’s coming if we sign this contract.

  NY’s leaders are primarily extremely light on TV/ theatrical credits and heavy on voice-over and some commercial work. Some of them have very few credits at all. While I prefer to keep the discussion away from “your credits=your credibility,” it is very relevant if you actually make your living as a SCREEN ACTOR rather than an AFTRA-HEAVY, voice-over-also-in-SAG type “performer” which NY features a WHOLE lot of. There is NOTHING wrong with that, however, there exists a union for those folks – AFTRA.

  This NY – LA divide speaks to me anyway about the need for peaceful DIVISION more than Frankenstein unity of SAG and AFTRA. SAG should take the “T” in AFTRA, and AFTRA should become AFRA again, we end the conflicts, and the divisions. Merging these two groups with inherent differences is not, and never has been, a good idea. One side or the other would feel dominated, one or more internal groups would feel slighted, others would get the best contracts and treatment, and, of course, unity would be met by the AMPTP with a collective shrug, along the lines of “You’re unified – good for you. The answer is still ‘no.’”

  And, ultimately, the merged union would only have the one tool SAG is asking for now to achieve ANYTHING of real import: the threat of strike.

  Bottom line: if the strike authorization fails, we, as members of the Screen Actors Guild have failed ourselves by not providing our negotiators with the only weapon that matters when facing a group of multi-national corporations with entertainment subdivisions that view actors as necessary evils, and would just as soon use holograms if they could – the ability to THREATEN the producers with the ONLY thing they fear from us – STRIKE.

  Comment by Matt Mulhern — Thursday December 18, 2008 @ 9:34am PST  Reply to this post

• Wow Paloma Pigeon…that is so true. I’ve been thinking it for awhile.

  But seeing Rosenberg up there really confirmed it for me. The desire of some of our own members to play this role, to be a part of a movement, any movement, is trumping their ability to actually see the world around them. I think this explains why those on the “yes” side seem so defensive and spiteful (and meretricious, the hysterical rhetoric about the deal is almost hilarious)…

  Comment by love's labors lost — Thursday December 18, 2008 @ 10:47am PST  Reply to this post

• The only list that would matter to me is the list we’re not going to see; “stars who plan on working non-union during the strike.” I would consider that list, because stars who would out we rank&file during the strike would effect my bottom line. Otherwise, lists don’t.

  SOMETHING FOR EVERYBODY TO CONSIDER:
  Does anybody think ad agencies and commerical producers are not watching all this and licking their chops?

  Does anybody think that if we don’t hold the line on residuals here, that we’re just setting ourselves up for commercial producers to try to bend us over too?

  Consider that if we sign any theatrical contract that decimates our residuals how that will effect the commercial negotiations.

  Why would ad agencies and commercial producers if they watch us get bent over on residuals theatrical NOT be thinking to themselves, either/and/or
  1) It’s time for making a run at limiting commercial residuals;
  and/or 2) it’s time to negotiate ourselves similar “new media provision” in the commercial contract;
  and/or 3) Why bother paying actors for trumping product in traditional commercials at all, when we can just have them do it in film and/or TV, and not pay them a cent for it?

  I don’t know about you, but to me, that’s scary stuff. The problem with bending over rather than holding the line against encroachment against one set of contractual adversaries is that it encourages EVERYBODY who sees you get bent over try to then do the same to you. Even if you fight and “lose,” it gives everybody else pause on whether if they take you on too you will just lie down and play dead.

  Consider that by failing to give the SAG leadership you voted into office authorization to call a theatrical strike, you might not be “avoiding a strike.” In fact, you might just be begging for another when ad agencies and producers see every reason to try to stick it to us there, and infinitely raising the chances for nasty problems and potential strike on the commercial contract.

  Consider that anybody who doesn’t want to hold the line against these set of producers might just be begging our next set of contractual adversaries to try to break through the line in our demonstrated lack of resolve to hold the line for as long as it takes.

  Ouch.

  If we settle for crap, not only are we training this same set of producers that “ultimate hardball works,” but we’re training everybody else to pursue that same tactic with us as a demonstrably effective strategy.

  Comment by Sterling Wolfe — Thursday December 18, 2008 @ 12:52pm PST  Reply to this post

• UNGRATEFUL ACTOR THROWS SHOE AT WEALTHY THESP

  I wish I could achieve the mixture of reason, passion and eloquence of almost every posting I’ve read by Matt Mulhern. Oh, well. Last night I threw a verbal shoe at Jason Alexander. His open letter has generated quite a lot of discussion. To be fair to Mr. Alexander, his tone is one of humility and sincerity.

  This is from Mr. Alexander’s seventh paragraph:

  “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.”

  Mr. Alexander’s expression of empathy for the crews and the staffs demonstrates public relations savvy and is probably sincere.

  My wife is a member of IATSE. She worked for eight years as a second camera assistant. Along with many other actors, I picketed with the crew of “Hearts of the West” in their successful fight for a union contract. The crew of “thirtysomething” expressed their gratitude when I was the only cast member who refused to be photographed by a non-union stills-shooter from ABC.

  I have volunteered and marched and been arrested on behalf of hotel workers, farm workers, custodians (Justice for Janitors), social workers, and the Living Wage campaigns in Los Angeles and Santa Monica.

  I’m not bragging — I wish I had done more — but I think I can claim as much worker-solidarity as Mr. Alexander.

  So, while I applaud his expression of empathy for crews and staffs, I must ask:

  Where is your empathy for your fellow actors, Mr. Alexander? This struggle isn’t about multi-millionaire performers who generously endorse a “No” vote, out of concern for staffs and crews. It’s about your brothers and sisters in your own profession who haven’t been as fortunate as you. Surrender to the AMPTP won’t affect you negatively, Mr. Alexander. You’ll be free to continue collecting your fees at the same somewhat-above-scale rate.

  But the surrender you advise will affect thousands of your fellow actors whose yearly income falls well below the yearly average income of staffs and crews. The number of actors directly affected will exceed the total membership of IATSE. Do you personally know any actors whose yearly earnings don’t qualify them for the health insurance you receive? Did you know that your health insurance was a right that was won for you by a previous generation of actors who had to go on strike to win it? And, yes, that strike affected crews and staffs. If you feel guilty about that, Mr. Alexander, there may be some way to discontinue your family’s health coverage.

  In his tenth paragraph, Mr. Alexander declares:

  “we can survive a few years of less than perfect compensation in order to do the hard work of mending our own broken bones.”

  I’ll delete Mr. Alexander’s anatomical metaphor to highlight the dominant clause:

  “we can survive a few years of less than perfect compensation ….”

  I’ll plagiarize Tonto’s line from a very old joke:

  The Lone Ranger, a masked Caucasian, assesses their situation in a shoot-out. “It looks like we’re surrounded, Tonto.” The Lone Ranger’s “faithful Indian companion” replies, “What do you mean, ‘We,’ White Man?”

  “we can survive a few years of less than perfect compensation … ”

  What do you mean, “We,” Jason Alexander?

  Comment by Dave Clennon — Thursday December 18, 2008 @ 12:53pm PST  Reply to this post

• Many actors talk about their fear of not being able to pay their bills in the next several months if a strike occurs (which is not guaranteed to happen if an authorization passes). Worry about when in 2, 5, 10, 20, and 30 years you are eating ramen in your one bedroom apartment before heading off to your night or day job. Worry about the fact that you are growing old and were never able to meet health and pension requirements after that darned contract in 2008 (there won’t be so much money coming into those funds either, so you won’t be missing much). You’ll be hustling for your own acting jobs again too, because your average sized agent couldn’t afford to keep their doors open without name clients – your 50-60% pay cut is theirs as well.

  Think about this – multiple residuals adding up to thousands of dollars for 1st, 2nd, etc. reruns replaced by one or two residual payments of $22.77 after the FREE window. How many jobs more will you have to book in order to make up for that loss? Let me tell you – more than you possibly can.

  That’s what I’M afraid of, not the possibility of a strike.

  My suggestion, get familiar with the 99 cent store – you’re going to need it to make your $22.77 residual check go further. It won’t pay your bills or rent or anything, but at least those grips and makeup artists weren’t out of work for a week or a month in 2009.

  And I’m talking to YOU working actors, not even struggling actors – you the actors who are able to be professional actors exclusively right now. Get your resumes together, you’re going to want to beat the rush to get the few “flexible” actor day jobs available.

  And BACKGROUND actors – what are YOU going to do when large numbers of AMPTP productions go non-union because SAG agreed to let them do that as long it was for New Media under $15,000 a minute – when everything for TV will be labeled new media and studios use funny money on the books even though its already easy to make shows under $15,000 a minute. In 2009 – ALL TV goes digital by law and many people get cable and internet from the same provider – why shouldn’t the networks broadcast via the internet? I hope you’re excited about getting that $64 a day again – oh wait, you only get that if you leave the protection of SAG, these are non union jobs that are available. I hope you’re excited about eating stale pretzels and PB & J while the crew eats steak and potatoes – at least then you won’t have to use some of your $64 for a walk away lunch. Maybe you’ll be lucky enough to make $15,500 a year if you manage to work 5 days of the week – only if you’ll leave the protection of SAG, of course.

  Fight for YOURSELVES actors, and YOUR right to make a living in YOUR PROFESSION. We didn’t create this situation, the AMPTP did. If you won’t even stand up for yourself, how can you expect anyone else to ever stand up for you, with you, or even respect you. If you don’t value what you do, why should the AMPTP? You’ve told them they are right to give your job to non-union John and Janes with the right look at the right price – dirt cheap. You said these people needn’t bother joining the union until they had done 90 WORKING days of SAG work. NINETY DAYS – how many guest stars, co- stars, and principle jobs will these people take away before they even think of declaring themselves professionals.

  I wish we could find out how the vote would go by lining every SAG member up and asking everyone who wants to vote “No” to take one giant step back…oh, wait – they already did.

  This isn’t about actors’ greed or selfishness in the face of crew member’s economic worries, this is about actors’ SELF PRESERVATION. Tell those grips and makeup artists to hold down a second job while trying to work as professionals in their craft for a month to make ends meet – they won’t entertain the thought – but they would ask you to do it for the next 20 or 30 years.

  Please vote “YES”!

  Comment by SAG Member — Thursday December 18, 2008 @ 2:56pm PST  Reply to this post

• I wish SAG member were not right, but they are. Does anybody remember the debacle we created called the “SAG experimental contract” which allowed for deferred pay?

  The maximum allowed was a $75K budget. But literally dozens of producers created million dollar films then submitted bogus production charts and told SAG they were “under $75K budget” and SAG fell for it, time and time again.

  I did a SAG experimental with Alimi Ballard, of “Numbers” where any bonehead reading the script could have seen that even one particular *page* absolutely required multiple helicopter shots costing enough that should have denied a $75K budget for that single page alone.

  Yet SAG, inundated with bogus “experimentals” green-lit all the bogus budgeted films under that contract, and we all got fucked.

  I ranked up $23.5K (in 1997 dollars) in penalties immediately due from producers (let alone deferred pay in addition). Won the arbitration with SAG. Grand total collected from producers to date = zero.

  We tried letting producers “experiment” before (the specifically stated reason for the SAG experimental contract. And the only thing they really “experimented” with was how best to sucker SAG into allowing them to shoot, experimenting with cooking up bogus budgets to submit to SAG, and experimenting how not to pay us a cent.

  I was under a SAG contract, and I got paid ZERO (for that and other “experimentals.”

  The “new media” will be outside union jurisdiction, if we allow them to get away with it. And any producer who submits any real budget over $15K a minute will be a laughing stock of everybody s/he knows for being that stupid instead of merely cooking the numbers and submitting to an overworked Screen Actors Guild who would not know an accurate shooting budget if it jumped out of their soup.

  You think you’re going to get paid without a SAG contract, when hundreds if not thousands of us got reemed when there -was- a contract that we made to allow producers to “experiment?”

  Yeah, good luck with that. Been there, done that. Won’t get fooled again. Smart people learn from their own experiences. Smarter people learn from the experiences of others. Consider which category you’d like to be included in.

  Comment by Sterling Wolfe — Thursday December 18, 2008 @ 9:13pm PST  Reply to this post

• Bull. If producers want to shoot something non-union under this proposal they can only do it non-union if they choose to not use a single SAG actor- so basically if they decide they want name and recognition- you all benefit and the entire Project is SAG- if they don’t then it gives actors who need experience and exposure a place to build their resume….

  And getting screwed by producers is standard for most of us- but believe me on any legitimate project I have worked on studio or independent- your SAG reps are all up in our business and they are extremely watch doggish about your BG players, so believe me – they do call on your behalf and make all kinds of threats and anyone who wants to release their project can’t until they pull their fangs out.

  However, why is it that BG players should get residuals? If you have the talent desired you will rise up- but if you are BG- you get paid more than way harder working crew members already-
  Alan said it on the news yesterday morning- this strike is about the background actors- why? Why do we owe them a living while chasing their dream? It’s called starving artist for a reason- until you make it there are sacrifices involved- stop asking all of us to make sacrifices so you can get paid to pursue your dreams.

  Comment by Audra — Friday December 19, 2008 @ 1:44pm PST  Reply to this post

• Did he really say it was about the BACKGROUND actors? The extras? Extras don’t get residuals, unless they are clearly seen in a commercial, and then they are considered a principal.

  Comment by Paloma Pigeon — Friday December 19, 2008 @ 5:25pm PST  Reply to this post

• Audra –

  BACKGROUND PLAYERS (Extras) DO NOT GET RESIDUALS. Maybe you shouldn’t criticize until you at least know that BASIC fact. Background players get a daily rate, that is it. But it is a lot better than non-union background rates which is minimum wage.

  Only principles – co-stars and day players and up get residuals. People that had to audition (and we need residual money because we can’t constantly audition and support ourselves without it). Also principles get residuals because when their work is used again and again it generates profit again and again, and it also effects an actors image – we are the “face” of the industry. It is part of our fee structure, otherwise producers should really pay a MASSIVE up front fee. Residuals aren’t a “bonus”, they are part of the paycheck.

  Comment by SAG Member — Friday December 19, 2008 @ 5:47pm PST  Reply to this post

• From my viewpoint:

  The headline is somewhat misleading.

  Nearly half in attendance seemed to be discreetly sitting on their hands during the Rah Rah pro-yes agitating and applause. I’d call the room 60-40% pro to con.

  Mr. Rosenberg appeared/sounded emotionally overwrought, attempting to play the ‘victim’ – angry, dismissive, sarcastic and too personalized for what should be limited to a professional leadership role, especially considering the opposition.

  Mr. Allen is a pro who gave a comprehensive presentation, but he should have avoided closing his comments with: “Our unity is better than the greed and stubborness of the producers.”

  Mr. Asner’s addition was unnecessary and way over-the-top in his archaic anti-”dissident” rhetoric (no surprise from the old commie). He also quoted Wendell Phillips’ “The labor movement means just this: it is the last noble protest of the American people against the power of incorporated wealth.”

  “If we don’t get this strike authorization, we are doomed… we are all in great peril… except for the luckiest among us.” — Alan Rosenberg, 12/17/08

  Comment by Brandi W. — Sunday December 21, 2008 @ 7:02pm PST  Reply to this post