There has been a major development within SAG tonight that makes a strike even less likely than ever. DHD readers know that back in December, I urged SAG to bypass a strike authorization altogether and place itself in an even stronger negotiating position by following a less risky course of action: send out the AMPTP’s June 30th contract proposal and let the members decide to ratify it or not by the necessary 50+% threshold. (See my previous, DHD To SAG: Forget Strike Authorization Ballot! Vote On AMPTP Contract Proposal.)
Well, imagine my surprise when, after Monday’s and Tuesday’s 30.5-hour marathon SAG National Board meeting, sources began telling me that a movement was underway to do the above. I waited to post about this significantly new development to see if the idea took hold. Well, it has.
Now SAG National Executive Director & Chief Negotiator Doug Allen has announced to the National Board and Alternates that he will spend the next days pushing for this contract vote by the membership instead of the strike authorization ballot. “I will convene an Officers’ call this week to discuss this suggestion and how it might be considered and implemented. I encourage all board members to discuss these issues with the Guild officers or with me in advance of the call,” Allen wrote. (See below.)
I view this as great news for the entertainment industry because it introduces a new dynamic when SAG’s solidarity is splitting down the middle over anything with the word “strike” on it. (And once again the trades and Bloomberg got it wrong by claiming SAG President Alan Rosenberg would now keep pushing for the strike authorization vote…).
I suggested that SAG’s National Board could refuse to offer a recommendation one way or the other about the AMPTP deal as a way to allow for the most democratic vote possible. (Under normal circumstances, the negotiating committee would recommend the contract to the National Board, which would then stamp it with an endorsement. I’d checked the SAG rules, and nothing there prevents the contract from being sent out “neutrally” for ratification now.) But Allen is proposing that the offer be sent out with Pro and Con statements from National Board members and that otherwise the Guild would remain neutral during any member debate regarding ratification. Sounds good.
But here’s the kick in the head: Allen proposed all of the above inside that marathon National Board meeting Monday and Tuesday. And for some reason, not everybody wanted it. In fact, my sources tell me that the National Board members who were overwhelmingly against it belonged to the Unite For Strength (U4S) and New York Regional camps who are on the same side of most issues because of their common loathing of the Membership First faction. I thought U4S and NY Regional saw themselves as “moderates” (at least that’s how the Hollywood trades and LA Times keep referring to them, and to Membership First as “militants”). But, tell me, how is it a moderate position to want to keep a Strike Authorization Ballot on the table with all that it implies? And how is it a militant position to want to send out the June 30th contract proposal to the membership for a vote when that’s what the AMPTP has been asking SAG to do for months and months?
Therefore, I must ask whether the same factions of SAG National Board members and alternates who sought to throw out the agreed-upon meeting agenda and SAG’s constitutional rules on Monday and Tuesday in order to focus solely on their anti-Membership First feud, are now putting their own agenda ahead of what’s best for all SAG members and for all showbiz? ”Doug offered them this compromise and they said ‘No, because we don’t trust you’. That’s it. No further discussion. Now they are in a bind,” one of my insiders explains. “Because if they don’t take this offer seriously, they will be the people who left the Strike Authorization on the table. But if they agree and Doug at el were successful in getting the AMPTP or the CEOs to sweeten the deal and maybe the membership to ratify it, then MF and Doug are heroes. And that’s political suicide for U4S/NY.”
I’ve said all along no matter if it was SAG vs AFTRA, or MF vs U4S, or Hollywood Division vs New York Division: the focus by the big actors union’s entire leadership should be on the contract, not on actor vs actor disputes. (Nor on Doug Allen. I recall how, during the WGA strike, the trades and the LA Times also targeted and villified that guild’s “outsider” – chief negotiator Dave Young who came out of the garment business’ union organizing — as the root cause of everything that was wrong. Only to later praise Young for his role in helping manuever the strike’s end game. In fact, the moguls who’ve sat down with Allen tell me he seems “calm and reasonable”. )
So it’s time for SAG members to hold ALL their leadership’s feet to the fire: Demand that your guild’s National Board table the Strike Authorization Ballot. Demand that you get to vote on the AMPTP contract now.
Allen proposes that, before a membership ratification vote, SAG “meet immediately with the AMPTP to determine to what extent, if any, they are willing to improve their last offer, to maximize its chances for ratification”. Heck, maybe pigs will fly and sanity will prevail and the Hollywood CEOs will have the good sense to order the AMPTP to show good faith and make the current contract proposal that more likely to pass now (as opposed to months later). Everyone knows on both sides that certain demands will be dropped at the 11th hour. This means tweaking French hours and force majeure and DVD bumps and some other impossible-to-get issues which we all know the two sides were planning to do anyway when a vote got closer. (Or was the plan by the AMPTP’s labor lawyers all along to make a big show of only giving in to the so-called “moderates” once they came into power in order to make them look all that much better compared to the “militants”? Nice to know that SAG’s recent National Board meetings are following the AMPTP’s script to perfection.) So simply do it now rather than later. Hasn’t the AMPTP punished SAG’s leadership enough already without SAG’s leadership punishing itself and its members?
I must remind SAG members that the AMPTP presented AFTRA with a virtually complete contract that wound up little changed. But the AMPTP made SAG negotiators start from scratch — literally — and negotiate up from the bottom issue by issue, term by term. It was a loathesome tactic. And it’s the primary reason why AFTRA’s negotiations took just a few weeks, while SAG’s bargaining dragged on and on and on… Those are the facts which no amount of spin by Big Media, or the AMPTP, or the anti-guild media can change.
I’d hate to think that SAG’s U4S or NY contingent won’t approve sending the contract out for a vote simply because they don’t want Membership First to get credit for making the strike threat go away. This isn’t about petty considerations like that. This isn’t about winning because the whole entertainment community is losing as this uncertainty drags on. The time is now for everybody to stop fighting and open their minds and consider the following:
If the contract is ratified, then SAG has decided that now in the midst of another Great Depression is not the time to fight. So the guild holds its fire for three years at which time I predict the mother of all strikes by two or more guilds will hit Hollywood. Basically, Big Media is swapping big pain now for much less hurt down the line by betting that their cartel will control even more of New Media by 2011. As for SAG, it’s clear that the reality of working under its own contract or AFTRA’s will leave most members bitter at having been bullied by a bad economy into a bad deal.
But if the contract is rejected, then the AMPTP and their Big Media bosses would have to realize that this isn’t just Alan Rosenberg or Doug Allen or Membership First militants shooting their mouths off about the rotten terms. Instead, SAG members themselves would have said “No” to the deal. It would also send a message to the moguls that leaving these negotiations in the hands of their labor lawyers didn’t work. (And Carol Lombardini’s “tryout” for Nick Counter’s job as AMPTP president was a big fat failure.) The Hollywood CEOs would have to start engaging in backchannel negotiations just like they did during the WGA strike. Then SAG could bargain representing the will of the majority of their members.
Here is Doug Allen’s letter to the Board:
Subject: Message from Doug Allen, SAG National Executive Director
January 14, 2009
Dear SAG National Board Members and Alternates,
Because the executive session of our recent extraordinary National Board meeting occurred without my presence in the room, I want to directly communicate several points to all board members and alternates.
I began and ended my report to the National Board on January 12 by stating that I have followed and always will follow the directives of the National Board expressed by a unanimous or majority vote. Under my leadership all SAG staff has complied and will comply with those directives as well. I also said that I am by SAG constitution and by employment contract accountable to the board for my performance.
I welcome your review of that performance and respectfully request only that, in the interest of fairness, such review include the opportunity for me to discuss with the board any comments, questions or issues you wish to raise, not in lieu of executive session discussion, but prior to such discussion.
It is unfortunate that the important matters contained in the National Board meeting ag enda were not accomplished at the meeting January 12 and 13. I know that opinions vary sharply on why that happened. From my perspective, to the extent AMPTP positions or actions are the problem, the solution cannot be determined by how intensely you fight among yourselves.
Regarding the TV/Theatrical negotiations, and the sharply divided opinions on the board about how to proceed, I offered the following suggestion to a cross section of Guild leaders during the period of the executive session. I asked that they discuss the suggestion with other board members in attendance. I proposed that the strike authorization referendum be suspended and that management’s offer be put to the membership in a ratification vote. I also proposed that, before that membership ratification vote, we meet immediately with the AMPTP to determine to what extent, if any, they are willing to improve their last offer, to maximize its chances for ratification. I further proposed that the offer then be sent to the members with Pro and Con statements from National Board members and that otherwise the Guild would remain neutral during any member debate regarding ratification. This process will give Screen Actors Guild members the opportunity to formally express themselves on the bargaining issues.
This suggestion was communicated to some, but not all board members in attendance, and apparently was rejected by some who heard it, at least in part, because they believe I could not be “trusted” to implement it. Since I am the one proposing it and since I have never acted contrary to the directives of the National Board, that is not a reasonable objection. In any case, if it is the decision of the National Board to proceed as I have proposed, I assure you that the staff and I will carry out your decision faithfully and diligently.
I will convene an Officers’ call this week to discuss this suggestion and how it might be considered and implemented. I encourage all board members to discuss these issues with the Guild officers or with me in advance of the call.
There are no more important issues before us than the conclusion of the TV/Theatrical Contract negotiations and the initiation of the Commercial Contract negotiations. Super-heated rhetoric through the press will not contribute to our success on behalf of the members. Working together to resolve your differences will.
Doug Allen
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.






Here’s the 411 (as the kids probably don’t say anymore):
Arkin and Vaughn asked for a meet with Doug Allen late December. They said it was all about the “division” and to chat about the SAV. THAT was gonna be the meet.
They asked for a national meet to “revisit” the SAV, you know, talk it over, maybe reconsider, all for the good of the membership, you know? The right thing to do…
NO MENTION OF ALLEN’S JOB. NONE.
Jan 11th, the Hollywood Board meets. UFS is asked if ANYTHING other than what was already on the agenda would be brought up at the national board meet.
“Nope”
Jan. 9th. David Hartley-Margolin sends an e-mail regarding Task Force guidelines.
“Why?”
“Eh, just wanna talk about Task Force guidelines at the national meet.”
“That’s it?”
“That’s it.”
Got nothing to do with Doug’s job or the neg com?”
“Nope.” (this bit was from the NY commercial W&W meet, just prior to the Hollywood national board meet)
Jan 12th. National meet? BOOM. Right off, UFS/NY/RBD calls for a suspension of the agenda.
“We wanna go into Executive Session”
Translation: Give Doug Allen a last meal, a cigarette and a blindfold.
They don’t wanna her anything from Doug – no talk of the four contracts:
(commercial/inter-active/TV/Theatrical/ Basic Cable)
Don’t wanna hear his NED report. Nothing. Shoot him. Now.
Board is told they want to “discuss Doug’s job performance” BUT, there IS no discussion, just a motion introduced to fire him, name an interim NED, blow up the neg com, a “work group” to take over negotiations, with names suggested, with a time line to get a deal, hiring of outside counsel, and, eliminate many key factors in Task forces.
One page motion.
11 hours later: after debate on motion, MF finds there is “attached language” to motion.
“What is that, where is it?” asks MF.
UFS/RBD/NY says “you got it already.”
“No we didn’t.”
“Oh. Sorry. We didn’t get you the ‘attached language?’”
“Nope.”
“Well – it’s SAG’s staff fault, not ours.”
SAG staff proves they never received “attached language.”
“Oh. Well. I guess you’re right.”
They “locate” the doc, make copies, hand it out to entire board.
Full page of legalese, MF asks for time to go over it and to ask questions.
“Nope.”
“Uh, how about ‘yup’ – you can’t spring this on us, and not give us time to read the damn thing and ask a few questions.”
A few questions get asked. Few answers are given. Some completely ignored. “We’ll deal with it when we get to it.” (one answer) “We don’t know.” (another answer. In fact – answers, as in, plural).
Meet scheduled to end Tuesday at 1pm. “Hard out” as they say. 2/3rds of board need to extend the meet. Suddenly – BOOM – UFS/RBD/NY end the meet. No extension requested. MF thought: “Weird. They haven’t requested a vote to fire Allen.”
Once it’s nearly over – SURPRISE! – UFS member hands Rosenberg a document.
It’s the 1st page of the “Fire Doug Allen” document. Signatures on the back.
“It’s a ‘written assent’ ” says the UFS-er who handed Rosenberg the doc.
The “written Assent” didn’t get the gold seal because it was fucked up nine ways to Sunday. BUT, it also contained signatures of board members who WERE NOT TOLD WHAT THEY WERE SIGNING.
Who passed this doc. around?
Gabrielle Carteris of UFS. Same person, when asked at Hollywood meet if there would be anything “new” on the agenda, said “nope!”
Gabrielle, who, at a town hall meet earlier was heard telling member, the reason why UFS/RBD/NY was working to defeat the SAV was to “weaken SAG, making it easier to merge with” – wait for it! – “AFTRA.”
Same thing Jamie Cromwell said to Dave Clennon.
Amy “Boom Boom” Aquino was seen lurking outside the meet the whole time. Neddly Dexter Vaughn went out to consult with “Boom-Boom” several times, to get his marching orders.
The “old guard” may be out (Aquino) but they’re, somehow(?) still “in.”
Neddly Dexter Vaughn was seen sitting with two “hired guns” (lawyers) in a booth DURING the Monday session. Same two guys from “Dewy-Suem-And-How” were also seen sniffing around the lobby deep into the wee hours of the 13th.
Some say MF “filibustered” to delay and waste cash. WRONG. UFS/RBD/NY could EASILY have gotten what they wanted. Why didn’t they?
That’s the 60 thousand dollar question.
They could have gotten through the agenda, as scheduled, as agreed to by THEM, then requested executive session the second day.
They were … what’s the word? Oh, yeah – THE MAJORITY.
Executive session second day, take vote, they fire Allen. Done.
And the “written assent” thing? If they knew they were going to go that route? Why did they drag it out for 30 hours? THEY WASTED TIME AND THEY WASTED THE MEETING.
Bottom line: UFS/RBD/NY had NO IDEA what they were doing – WASTED the other board members time, and WASTED SAG’s money.
Can I get an “AMEN?”
Allen’s move is brilliant, though perhaps too brilliant. It’s a (his) job-driven decision and not a SAG-driven decision. I’d call this a “reverse strike” with a likely brutal end, definitely benefiting independent (non-SAG) productions. Another thought is that many of these “high profile actors” leading the resistance to strike are actually producer-actors. Then there’s the AFTRA-SAG actors and the SAG-WGA-DGA actors, and the DGA-SAG-WGA-AFTRA ones, too. It’s the hyphens that are killing SAG.
Wow. So you mean SAG members are actually going to be allowed by their union to take a look at the contract and decide for themselves whether it’s any good or not so everyone can get back to work? What a concept! I guess SAG finally realized it’s a dying union and needed to finally pull their heads out of their asses and actually do something that should have done, oh, at least six months ago.
The SAG has to decide who it wants to represent. The working class majority, or the studios and brand actors. This two headed dragon is eating itself alive.
That’s interesting, apparently U4S an NYB people have jumped all over this thread. Why are these posts still talking about strike authorizations and negotiating teams? This new proposal is about an end to negotiation and a CONTRACT RATIFICATION! Not a strike authorization.
Where are all the high profile press statement loving people and below the line people yelling at SAG to let everyone get back to work? If this contract is ratified, everyone will get back to work. So where are your comments applauding Doug Allen’s proposal?
Is it because you are afraid that the contract will get voted down? Guess what, any contract could get voted down. And since the AMPTP has not negotiated on any points since they put this final offer to us, if we aren’t going to strike or at least threaten to strike, we really only have the option of agreeing to or not agreeing to the deal they want to put forward to us.
Why does one post above suggest that we formally drop our demand in certain areas in the hopes that AMPTP will sweeten other areas – they have already said they aren’t sweetening anything. Is it just you want us to give up on points formally so they never have to even discuss things in the future (WGA DVD residual style). Who do YOU work for?
I say Doug should be given the go ahead immediately, then request the AMPTP get back to SAG at Midnight Monday on whether they want to put any new terms in before the contract goes out (as a formality, or to call bullshit on them wanting THIS universally accepted to be shitty contract to go put). Meanwhile, everyone should be working round the clock to do the paperwork and write the Pro and Con statements and get this thing rush printed and sent to SAG membership for ratification before the end of next week. What is the fastest time we can get the votes counted by?
Either actors will accept this deal or not but we’ll all know where we stand FORMALLY AND INDISPUTABLY, so why all the hemming and hawing and complaining about non-relevant things. Why isn’t there support for this?
Was all the yelling and accusing and public backstabbing and BTL ranting just for fun and personal reasons, or did you guys actually want an answer as to whether actors will accept this. This isn’t kindergarten, this is about people’s lives. Grow up, and FAST. You guys standing in the way of this proposal look like ASSES especially after all your recent public statements against strike authorization and for getting a deal done – BTL call the U4S and NYB out on THIS instead of yelling at Doug and Alan all the time.
Hey, you never know, the contract could actually be ratified. Yeah, that’ll suck for actor’s livelihoods, but if that’s what the members want as a whole…it’s their decision to make.
And, yes I was for a Strike Authorization, but if that will only cause more public infighting and high profile blocking, then lets get the memberships answer this way.
There have been a ton of screwups in SAG, but this is probably the smartest move they can make right now all things considered. If the current contract is ratified then that obviously answers questions about a strike authorization. If it isn’t ratified then it sends a clear signal to AMPTP that this contract isn’t a go. This was the smart thing to do back when all the Unite For Strength/NYC inferiority complex stuff started, but at least they’re getting to it now.
Yetanotherwriter,
We should have waited for SAG? Seriously? Have you noticed how they are the biggest joke in Guild history? Have you noticed how one faction is destroying the guild’s ability to negotiate? If there is one lesson to learn from any of this it is do not ever wait for SAG.
And the WGA, DGA and AFTRA deals will all destroy their unions down the line. Yes, it is that bad. But what do I know, I’ve just been watching Netflix on my x-box 360 for a couple of months. Every night. Live streaming. I remember all my fellow writers saying it wouldn’t happen for YEARS. Thankfully, the WGA deal gives writers a few shiny pennies for each viewing – oops, but the studios aren’t paying.
There are no unions in this town, only the weak.
“Can’t we all just get back to work”??
Nikki, I love you and DHD as the only source of unbiased Hollywood Industry news.
I would ask one thing of you. Please stop referring to the Anti-Hollywood, Anti-Membership First crowd as “moderates”. This is an AMPTP spin. New York, Unite for Strength and to a certain extent the Regional Branches are as “moderate” as Attila the Hun, Vlad the Impaler, and Nick Counter.
Thanks,
Terrence Beasor
Dear yetanotherwriter,
So you think the WGA should have waited until SAG went on strike? You see what’s happening to the actor’s union – they can’t agree on anything. And you think its a good idea that writers would sit around waiting for SAG to make up it’s mind.
“I wonder what Reagan would have done in this situation if this had happened on his watch?”
Disbanded the union, of course.
Dear Brothers and Sisters in the other Guilds and Unions. We Will join up with you in 2.5 years IF you are serious and committed to advancing the common strength of our unions.Happy to. However, NOW is the time for you to bug out of the actors’ business and act like grownups. Very little work has been stalled because of the AMPTM refusal to be reasonable. Work has left L.A. for all kinds of reasons and in fact T.V. production has not been effected except where it hurt actors with the loss of SAG contracts to AFTRA.You all can cut the phoney histrionics and either support us or lay low till YOU have to deal with AMPTM.Nikki has the right idea. Let’s just vote up or down!!
yetanotherwriter, ive been watching on my 360 too. it looks like shit on a 108″ screen, and it looks like shit on a 42″ screen. overall it looks like shit…
A Bad-time story:
The truly irresponsible, cowardly descriptions of “what is going on” within SAG, are coming fast and furious from dissent within SAG, from other union members who are impatient for a resolution, from media that is propped up by industry advertising, and from a wide range of other sources that report what’s been reported, cling to the accepted narrative, and join the legion of lazy, incompetent and unfair observers of this train-wreck, without asking very basic questions that can put there entire debacle in perspective:
Who is causing this?
Well, the AMPTP, of course. They declared they were going to “phase out residuals” in the NY Times in 2007, and they are following through on that pledge.
Is it fair or just or humane or even, necessary, from a business standpoint to do this?
No. Profits are even, or up. The entertainment industry is doing remarkably well, despite the economic downturn, as is usually the case. Movies and TV continue to be the cheapest entertainment options available, DVD’s continue to sell like hotcakes, the conglomerates that own these entertainment subdivisions are enjoying, in some parts of their business, record profits.
So why are they doing it?
Because they want to. Simple as that. It is no mystery residuals were hard fought and won, decades ago, and that all protection of residuals or increase has required either the threat of a strike, or an actual strike by the Screen Actors Guild, as has every other advance in wages and benefits.
But, going into new media, the producers simply made a decision that it was time to follow through on what was number one on their wish list for decades: end residuals.
If you only have to pay the talent that actually makes the product you finance and then sell, once, all the more for you. Profits rise, shareholders smile, corporate overlords rain praise and bonuses down on your heads. It’s a win-win.
Except, of course, for the people losing a third to half their income: middle-class actors.
Directors, writers? They rely far less on residuals due to much larger upfront fees. Their union bosses can persuade them that there may actually be a “renegotiation” come the next contract, that there will be some residuals in new media, that the TV and film model isn’t going to suddenly just disappear. Those unions may take a hit, but their union bosses can convince enough of them right off the bat (the DGA) or after a 100
day strike (the WGA) that this is the deal we should take and we are doing the right thing by our members. We will work, as always, to improve terms down the line, but in the interest of the “greater good” – the other unions, the below the line folks, the dependent business community, this is the professional, responsible thing to do.
You might call it, oh, the soft bigotry of low expectations, much as I hate to use that phrase.
But, SAG’s leaders, they see clearly early on – this is a contract that could break the union. 1/3rd, 1/2 of middle-class actors incomes lost? All that income to the union to cover vital programs such as pension and health, lost?
They run the numbers. They run them again. And again. And they understand what’s ahead: the necessity of telling the most divided union in the business that the union will have to fight off this contract, and that it may, just may, require a strike.
Not a strike happy union, by any stretch. The last TV/Theatrical strike was in 1980. 26 years ago. But there is a divide in SAG: the “moderates” and “the hard-liners.”
Every time any question of SAG push-back comes up against the employers, the factions square off, and generally trade power, as the membership tires of one faction or the other. “We’re sick of the “moderates” being unwilling to fight and giving things – benefits, wages, fair residual deals, away to the producers. They vote them out.
“We’re tired of these ‘hard-liners’ ” – they’re too arrogant, they can’t get a deal because they don’t know how to negotiate like we “moderates” do, they ask for too much, and deliver too little. They raise tensions unnecessarily. Too much drama. Back come the “moderates,” and so on.
Then, along comes THIS contract: TV/Theatrical 2008. The “hard-liners” are in control now. Why? Because the membership was tired of the “moderates” allowing the AMPTP to consistently push the union around, and specifically, the membership wanted a long, long overdue raise in the ridiculously low residual rate for DVD, first established in 1986. There was a promise then of “revisiting” the issue and “renegotiating” the rate “if a business model formed” and “a reliable profit stream emerged.”
Well, such profits have emerged. In fact, DVD is THE driving profit sector in the movie business. Billions upon billions are made, but the middle-class actor receives a relative pittance, while their work, along with the work of the directors and writers who actually make the product, (but especially the actors – by far the least compensated creative union) is rewarded with a pittance: a now 20 plus year-old rip-off of a rate.
Privately, even publicly, producers will openly acknowledge they lied and have taken advantage of middle-class actors. Similar tensions arise over a paltry cable residual rate first established in 1988. “New technology, new market, may not work, if it does, we’ll get back to you” – same explanation, same result for middle-class actors.
But THIS 2008 TV/Theatrical contract, is the first to deal substantively with “new media” – the reuse and original production of content via the internet. All agree this is where ALL content is going and delivery is going. Now? No, not immediately, but, it’s happening already, expanding rapidly, the entertainment industry is investing heavily in new media, is already making large sums of money there, and is planning to “move over” existing content to new media, while approaching a day in the not too distant future when ALL content will be delivered by the internet. Your TV will BE your computer. ABC will BE ABC.com And so on.
The 2008 contract, instead of stipulating a straightforward, fair and equitable system of compensating actors, includes a number of alarming approaches to new media as it will affect the middle-class actor.
“Move over.” An episode of a TV show an actor would be paid over three thousand dollars for when it is rerun the first two times on network, suddenly starts “moving-over” to the internet. The original episode airs on NBC. The rerun? On SOME shows – yes, on the network. On others? The rerun never appears on the network, only on NBC.com. The actor loses thousands of dollars. SAG actors, collectively, lose millions of dollars. SAG itself begins to see the drop coming, already happening, in revenue to the union, and begins to project the coming losses, as more and more content “moves over” or, simply originates, and stays, on the internet.
No residuals are offered for that “original content” for the internet.
Content “above 15 thousand dollars per minute” will be made for the internet union. But UNDER 15 thousand dollars per minute? This contract asks SAG to, against its core principals, allow a “nonunion” space in its OWN contract, so the AMPTP can have “flexibility” to “experiment” in new media using ALL nonunion talent and technical crew. The average cost of original content for new media? Two thousand dollars per minute. So, practically speaking, “over 15 thousand dollars per minute being union” means almost nothing will be union.
Any “union” content for new media dictates residual terms ridiculously low. 27 dollars. For a YEAR’S reuse. 85 dollars for a YEAR’S reuse. And so on.
This is justified by the AMPTP because they say “it’s about pennies” right now – we can’t be expected to pay you comparable residuals on such low return, or even losses, as we “experiment” in the beginnings of content production in new media.
SAG says, “We understand. So, we propose some sort of percentage of distributors gross revenue: if a producer makes 100 million on an internet piece of content, SAG gets X%. If a producer only makes 1000 dollars on a piece of new media, SAG gets the exact same X%. If a producer LOSES money on new internet content, that producer has NO fixed obligation to SAG.
Fair, right? Easy, right? Protects both the producers and SAG in both the short and the long term, right?
But the producers are livid. “Absolutely not. It is a complete nonstarter.”
They also want to take away clip consent and payment from the actor. They want to radically redefine the concept of product placement. Afraid the income from the traditional advertising business model is changing and drying up, producers now want to have a contract that dictates that actors must agree as a condition of employment to do commercial endorsements in character, in TV and movie roles.
They want to discontinue the right of Force Majeur, a protection against loss of salary due to “acts of God” – hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, strikes by other unions that close down SAG actors employment. This is a right SAG actors have had since 1939.
The SAG leadership absorbs all this, and over the course of a number of negotiations, realizes these are all seemingly “lines in the sand” for the AMPTP, and unless SAG acquiesces to everything, there will be a labor impasse.
Surely, the leadership thinks – “moderate” or “hard-liners” will agree: these terms are unacceptable. A gradual loss of residuals, up to half the middle-class actors income gone within a few years time? These other prohibitive terms that will dramatically change for the worse the ability of actors to make a living while being treated with respect for themselves and their craft by the producers? The support will flow without even having to ask, right?
Wrong.
The “moderates” see the delays not as “SAG can’t get a deal because of the producers refusal to negotiate in good faith,” but, as a political opportunity. They begin to speak out: “where’s our deal?” “what’s the problem?” “you must not be competent negotiators not to have a deal by now.”
SAG leadership recognizes they have a growing insurgency on their hands. They find themselves in the increasingly uncomfortable position of trying to responsibly represent a membership that is first rumbling, then growling, then roaring at them “where’s our deal!”
They find themselves representing some of the membership that WANTS a deal that will phase out residuals, and agree to all the other prohibitive terms so “we can all get back to work!”
They face a media, bought and paid for by the entertainment conglomerates, that is giving short-shrift to the obvious inequities and outright attacks the contract represents on the middle-class actors ability to make a living. They suddenly realize – they face a membership, part of which doesn’t seem to realize they want their leaders to agree to a contract that will END SAG.
This is where we are, and this is how we got here. Either SAG strikes and retains its rights in a painful labor action, or SAG gives in to the “moderate” section of the union and the influential “stars” who have signed a petition to capitulate to the demands of the AMPTP, so as not to strike “at a bad time in the economy.” But, what if the middle-class actor, after this contract is signed, and after history repeats itself, and SAG can’t get back all it gave away, can’t make a living? “Not now – bad time” say “the stars.”
What will happen? Will SAG survive? Will the membership, in its anger and resentment at the delay in getting a contract – ANY contract – succeed through its “moderate” wing, in ousting SAG’s current leadership?
And if that leadership collapses, and the “moderates” – UFS/RBD/USAN/NY – make a deal that seals the fate of an eventually doomed union and profession, due to their relentless stubbornness as to their own professional health?
Stay tuned.
“James Cagney” – Please stop using the name of Mr. Cagney as if you know how he would feel about present day SAG negotiations. Though I never Met, knew or worked with him I can easily say that you sir, are no James Cagney.
Cagney took zero shit from the studios. He repeatedly put his neck on the line for his fellow actors. He would tell these UFS/RBD/NY weasels where to put it, then push a grapefruit in their face.
Matt: Cagney might also have balked at the idea that “extras” (now “background”) would be entitled to the same resiuduals for simply appearing without lines, and would be part of the deadlock we see now posing as “middle class” actors – who knows? Cagney was a working actor whose image is larger than life and he might just be PISSED that his name is being used by the poster. I just think it is dispespectful but that doesn’t seem to be problem for you as you only seem to respect your opinion.
Matt Mulhern is my hero.
Matt Mulhern laid it out very well. It’s a time for guts and smarts. Rise to the challenge, SAG members.
Frank
“It isn’t what we don’t know that gives us trouble, it’s what we know that ain’t so.” (Will Rogers)
“All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that’s an alibi for my ignorance.”(Will Rogers)
“Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear.”( Dinah Mulock Craik)
Dear People,
Any one of the above and many more, might aptly describe what the ‘professional actors of SAG, are up against and should beware of when receiving information from Trade Papers, Mainstream Media, The AMPTP, and most incipient; the other faction of our union; U4S, Unite For Strength, their most recent and current permutation, having inhabited many forms before now; ‘Shape Shifters Unite,’Unite For Strength,’ whatever.
The thing that burns my ass; is the everyday reference by Dave McNary and others, to the “Hard Line, Aggressive, Dissident, Fringe group; “Membership First,” stalling the “Moderate, Peace Loving, Majority, on the board known as; Unite For Strength,” and the sanctification for every twitch of their ‘body politic. Here’s a quote from Dave McNary, of Daily Variety’s January 14th edition;
“The moderates–a coalition of members from New York, the regional branches and the Hollywood-based Unite for Strength–had contended that their resolution could restart long-stalled negotiations between SAG and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. Allen who has alienated most board members outside of Hollywood, could have been replaced by SAG senior adviser John McGuire or former guild execs Sallie Weaver or David White.
Then, here comes the good part;
“The resolution would have put negotiations on a fast track. It called for a new interim chief negotiator and a “work group” that would replace the negotiating committee to bargain the best terms and conditions attainable with the AMPTP, then report the results to the national board at a videoconferencing meeting on Feb. 8.”
Says who? Who’s the authority here? Who’s the source of this information? Where’s the documentation? Dave McNary wrote it, was he quoting someone or did he arrive at this on his own?
Is this objective reportage or is just another person looking out for their own livelihood, wanting to ‘go along to get along,’ taking the easiest course so as not to disrupt their wonderful lives and careers.
I like Dave McNary, he’s not a bad guy but after many years of corresponding with him on guild affairs, I gave him a three page position paper on the contractual impasse, explaining the problems, the solutions, the alternatives. What does he deduce from all of that? The following;
“Longtime SAG activist Tom Bower passed out leaflets of his message asserting that the congloms’ six-month-old proposal would lead to the elimination of residuals—an assertion strongly disputed by the AMPTP. “That’s been their plan all along, ever since they began negotiations with the writers in July 2007,” he added.
Mostly true, as reported, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t matter how “strongly the AMPTP disputed” my claim, here’s the entire story reported by Michael Cieply in the July 11, 2007 of The New York Times, “you could look it up.” (Casey Stengel)
THE NEW YORK TIMES
July 11, 2007
Hollywood Executives Call for End to Residual Payments
By MICHAEL CIEPLY
ENCINO, Calif., July 11 — In an unusually blunt session here today, several of Hollywood’s highest-ranking executives called for the end of the entertainment industry’s decades-old system of paying what are called residuals to writers, actors and directors for the re-use of movie and television programs after their initial showings.
The executives stopped short of saying they would demand an immediate end to residual payments in the upcoming, probably difficult negotiations with writers, actors and directors. But they were emphatic in calling for the dismantling of a system under which specific payments are made when movies and shows are released on DVD, shown abroad or otherwise resold. Instead, they want to pool such revenue and recover their costs before sharing any of the profit with the talent.
“There are no ancillary markets any more; it’s all one market,” said Barry Meyer, chief executive of Warner Brothers. “This is the time to do it.”
The briefing at the headquarters of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, an industry bargaining group, was conducted by Mr. Meyer, Leslie Moonves, chief executive of CBS, and Anne Sweeney, president of the Walt Disney-ABC Television Group, along with the alliance’s president, J. Nicholas Counter. It was intended to set the stage for Monday’s opening of contract talks with the Writers Guild of America unions on both coasts.
A spokesman for the Writers Guild of America West had no immediate response. But representatives of that guild and other unions said they expect to extend their compensation arrangements to new media rather than retreating from existing formulas.
The industry’s contract with the writers expires on Oct. 31, while contracts with the Screen Actors Guild and the Writers Guild of America the following June 30. With these deadlines looming, networks and studios have been scrambling to lock up additional episodes of shows that could be aired in the event of a strike, and movies that could be finished before the actors’ deadline. The industry executives declined to discuss specific contract proposals. But they said they would adamantly oppose any move to extend residual-like payments to the sale of movies and shows on the Web or in other new media. They repeated an earlier call for a study that would, in effect, defer decisions about such distribution channels for as long as three years.
“We need complete flexibility,” said Ms. Sweeney, who described broadcasters as being in a desperate scramble for revenue as consumers increasingly turn to online sources for programs that are often stripped of advertising. “Guild restraints limit our ability to do what we need to do,” she said.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map
Followed by:
Now we have Doug Allen our National Executive Director, stating in today’s Variety, Thursday, January 15, 2008, in an Dave McNary article with a banner that reads; “MODERATES WILL FIGHT ON” ———have a familiar ring to it? Anyway, Doug Allen, reportedly has said;
“For his part, Allen sent a message to board members late Wednesday that he had proposed to various members outside the meeting that the strike authorization be put on hold and that the congloms’ final offer be sent to the membership as a ratification vote. He said that the idea was rejected by some but that he’d continue to ask board members to take that route.”
Halleluiah!
I don’t need credit or recognition for having preached and written about this voluminous times in the past month, as long as you realize;
You cannot, under any circumstances, accept the terms of a contract that is being recommended by any damned faction whatsoever, until the terms of our residuals are at least restored and preserved under the auspices of “New Media,” under that “New Contract,” and just so you understand clearly what is being proposed, I am now including in this missive, a carefully diagnosed and described analysis by Scott Wilson. He’s been working on this for at least a year and your livelihood depends on your knowledge of this momentous transition.
And by the way; when Barry Meyer, chief executive of Warner Brothers, says in Cieply’s New York Times article; “There are no ancillary markets any more: it’s all one market.” “This is the time to do it.”
Truer words were never spoken; and they apply to us. Maybe now, Doug Allen and all of us as members will use this momentous time to demand;
A percentage of every dollar from dollar one, one number for the allocation of all markets in all territories. “This is the time to do it.”
In the meantime, the original maxim still stands;
No Strike! No Strike Authorization! No Deal!
Let them lock us out, or keep working under present terms, which forbids them from making their big tent pole extravaganzas, because their insurance companies won’t guarantee completion until they get a contract with us; we keep making our “Independent Completion Guarantee” contracts; television continues as it has; or we go back and work up a new deal, for the modern ages.
Read Scott Wilson’s letter below and thank your lucky stars that Membership First fought their hearts out to keep you from losing your shirts, but; they are going to have to work harder to put the right deal on the table. Rest assured, whatever it is, it’s light years beyond what USF would have you settle for.
It’s your guild, it’s your life.
Tom Bower
Hello. I’m Scott Wilson.
I’m a professional actor.
I’ve earned a living as an actor for 42, going on 43 years.
I’m indebted to the founders of the Screen Actors Guild for helping to make that possible.
Ralph Morgan,
Fay Wray,
Eddie Cantor,
Gloria Stewart,
James Cagney and
others and succeeding generations who built on their foundation and at great cost, fought for and gained residuals, the lifeblood of the acting community, health coverage, pension benefits, that become more important as we grow older, also working conditions and protections for our creative integrity.
Right now all of this is under threat and I’m concerned for this and future generations of actors.
The AMPTP is demanding rollbacks that will eliminate those hard earned benefits and protections.
The industry as we know it, is changing rapidly and dramatically.
New formulas need to be devised that will allow our membership to continue to earn a living.
In one area alone, network television, the AMPTP demands will mean that actors will lose 1st, 2nd and succeeding rerun residuals to move over/streaming on the internet.
In exchange for the day players first rerun residual of $759 and second rerun residual of $759 the day player will receive $22.77.
The guest star will lose his first and second rerun residuals of $3,290 each, in return for $85.00.
This means these performers will be losing 50-66% of their income.
In aggregate, our membership will lose 100-200 million dollars a year.
In the life of a 3-year contract that’s 300-600 million dollars.
Making a pittance of the 200 million dollars management says they are spreading across the table, basically taking more than they’re giving.
There will be no contributions to the health plan on that lost income, knocking thousands of our members out of health coverage.
There will be no contributions to the pension plan, greatly diminishing the possibility of future generations having a pension when they reach retirement age.
Our agents will be losing 50-66% of their income.
Many will find it impossible to stay in business, leaving our membership without representation.
Who will be submitting us to casting directors for consideration?
This would be the cost in just ONE of a series of rollbacks the AMPTP is demanding.
Another, impacting our creative integrity, is clip usage.
For the last 50 years, producers have had the right to use clips for promotional purposes.
Beyond that they need consent from the performer.
They now want to do what they call “mashing”, that is taking one, two or more clips from different movies or shows and putting them together.
For a token payment, you would be required to give your consent as a CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT.
If you don’t consent you don’t work.
I feel very strongly that actors should have the right to maintain the integrity of their work.
These are just two of the issues confronting us.
Visit SAG.org and download the contract updates and other negotiations information.
Familiarize yourself with the entire list of rollbacks management is demanding.
It’s important that you educate yourselves and understand the issues so that you can cast an informed vote.
Your future depends on it.
Thank you.
no offense to y’all but this notion of a “middle class actor” is hilarious. At any given time 5-6% or less of actors make a living wage. 2-3% or so make a fortune and could give a shit about the negotiation.
So this “middle class actor” status is 3% of our union, give or take a percentage point. No wonder we’re divided.
Extras don’t get residuals you ass.
Why do people keep saying that? Where are you getting your information from?
I see Matt Mulhern is back to rallying the MF base here with his essays.
Now he just has to convince everyone else. After all, preaching to the choir will only take you so far, Matt. This is something you, and the other MF supporters, don’t seem to understand.
You’re not going to get any of the things you have on your little wishlist there. Not a single thing. Want to know why? Because you didn’t incorporate a smart strategy from the outset to get them.
You may want something, and you may even have moral cause, but without a smart strategy to get them all you’re left with is a prayer and a dream.
That’s why you’re failing, Matt: because your strategy failed. You can blame everyone else for your problems, but there really is no one to blame here but yourselves.
The entire premise of your strategy was always predicated on a strike. You came in with unreasonable demands because you wanted the negotiation to fail. Under the threat of a work stoppage, only months after another work-stoppage, you expected the studios to buckle. What you never took into account was the fact that the majority of members would be against a strike. Confronted with this reality, you took the opportunity to attack and impugn the motives of others who disagreed with you and your tactics, hoping others would just “fall in line.” This further alienated yourself from other members.
Now, without the ability to rally the different factions and other guilds for a common purpose (something that should have been done all along), and without the ability to actually get strike authorization, you have nothing left to negotiate with.
It sucks, I understand. But SAG has no one to blame but themselves here. It’s just too bad that you MF types want to send all of us over the cliff with the rest of you.
Matt is also my Hero! Keep laying it out and let everyone know what time it is . . .
I really enjoy your posts along with everyone else I know.
Thank you!!
Matt Mulhern is only concerned about himself and nothing more. I especially like the way he calls people names when they dont agree with what he says. Thank god I have already graduated from high school. It is because of people like Matt that we are in this situation to begin with. His theory that the studios are cowering in a corner because he doesnt like the contract is hilarious. You know, I think the bigger fear right now when TV goes “digital” is that actors wont be needed at all anymore. Anyone afraid of a thursday night world of warcraft interactive 3 hour block before Leno comes on? ANYONE? I suppose Matt would require the CGI game characters be SAG and get a residual check 8 years from now because he doesnt know how to save his money. I propose we start to organize video game characters under a SAG contract just in case! SAG is full of wannabe actors like Matt who dont understand business at all. I have been on set with a SAG actor who asked the director what the DGA on his hat stood for. WOW! These are the people that the pro strike faction try to manipulate to get what they want. They say they are out for the membership, but they are only concerned about themselves. Hell, Anne Marie was working on a show with non union writers just to make sure she gets her check. These people talk a lot of game, but will drop all of that to run out and audition when their agents call. As I have said before, I am sure they are all refusing to audition for anything right now until their is a proper contract in place. Right Matt? I swear, following them is like following Bush and his cronies.
The way they cannot admit mistakes have been made, Bush and Iraq. The way anyone who doesnt agree is anti union, same as anyone who didnt agree with Bush policies is anti american. See the similarities. I cant wait to see how the mess up the commercial contract. There is an industry that has never recovered from the commercial strike 7 years ago.