6 PM UPDATE: It's official -- the SAG National Board has approved a 2-year tentative deal. The vote was 53.38% to 46.62% and SAG will recommend the pact. But there will be both "Pro" and "Con" statements sent to members with the ratification materials. The official SAG and AMPTP statements are below.
4:40 PM: I hear there hasn't been the intense level of vitriol inside SAG's National Board meeting about the tentative TV/Theatrical Agreement with the AMPTP. That's because I'm told opponents of the terms of the deal will get to include their "Con" statement when it goes out to the 120,000-strong members (at least those in good standing). I applaud this very fair and balanced step towards educating the big union's actors about whether they wish to ratify this pact or not.
The "Vote No" contingent believes that, once actors see on paper that their residuals will slip away, they'll reject the contract. Interestingly, the official SAG statement about the contract doesn't spell out the exact residuals called for in the agreement, even though other provisions are specified.
But the SAG National Majority is privately saying it's counting on the "exhaustion" factor to ensure passage: that SAG members are so tired of how long it's taken to reach a deal that they'll "Vote Yes" just to end the prolonged process. Still, SAG's new leaders are going to have to explain in their "Pro" statement why in the world they didn't at least try to negotiate better terms. Because this is the AFTRA contract with a few bones thrown in for features that were expected to be included at the last minute no matter who was heading SAG.
However, SAG's ex-leadership would never have allowed the awful force majeure "compromise" that SAG's Leaders 2.0 agreed to that leaves too many individual actors without the protection of their union.
After the SAG National Majority fired National Executive Director and Chief Negotiator Doug Allen, disbanded the guild's Negotiating Committee, and replaced it with an appointed task force, the new unit was handed a "Last, Best & Final Offer" by the AMPTP".
The only term truly bargained was to trim the 3-year pact down to a 2-year pact so it would end the same time as AFTRA's, and that was accomplished in backchannel negotiations with the Hollywood CEOs. The SAG National Majority's thinking is that, then, both unions could merge and together negotiate better New Media terms since the Hollywood CEOs will better know their profit margins. But the "Vote No" contingent believes this is a hopelessly naive strategy. Because Big Media and its AMPTP has failed to make more lucrative agreements for each new technology that came along -- first VHS, then DVDs, now streaming and downloading. So the fact is that not once have the studio and network CEOs been open to renegotiate the contract terms each time a new format caught on.
No one really knows if the pact will pass. "It's going to take a massive upheaval from the membership to change what they're imposing on us," one of my sources says, "and we don't have a leader now, just accomplices."
Finally, I hope that no one plays fast and loose with this ratification vote. I hope there's no attempt like IATSE did to claim a "No" vote is a strike authorization. (It's not.) I also hope there's no attempt to confuse the Commercials Contract with the TV/Theatrical Contract. SAG members deserve an honest and open discussion about the pros and cons.
Here is the officiaL SAG statement tonight:
SCREEN ACTORS GUILD NATIONAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPROVES TENTATIVE
TELEVISION AND MOTION PICTURE CONTRACTS AND RECOMMENDS RATIFICATIONLos Angeles (April 19, 2009) – The Screen Actors Guild National Board of Directors today voted 53.38 percent to 46.62 percent to approve and recommend to members, new, two-year successor agreements to the 2005 Producer-Screen Actors Guild Codified Basic Agreement and 2005 Screen Actors Guild Television Agreement.
The proposed agreement, covering actors in motion pictures and television delivers 3.5% effective annual increases comprised of a 3% wage increase and a .5% pension and health contribution increase upon ratification, and a 3.5% wage increase in year two.
The board passed the below motion shortly after 4:00 p.m. today:
It was moved and seconded that the National Board directs the Interim National Executive Director to send the tentative agreement between the Producers represented by the AMPTP and the Screen Actors Guild for successor agreements to the 2005 Producer–Screen Actors Guild Codified Basic Agreement and the 2005 Screen Actors Guild Television Agreement to the membership for ratification, with a recommendation from the Board to vote ‘Yes.’
Approved: 53.38% –46.62%“I urge members to carefully review both the pros and cons in the referendum materials, and exercise their right to vote,” said Screen Actors Guild National President Alan Rosenberg.
Interim National Executive Director David White said: “We are pleased that Screen Actors Guild members will soon be voting on a deal for television and motion pictures. We’re eager to get our members back to work and to focus now on the challenges ahead, particularly on initiating a comprehensive effort to thoughtfully plan for the future.
Our negotiating committee, task force and professional staff have worked countless hours on this agreement over the last year. On behalf of the National Board, I thank them for their time, commitment and expertise.”
Chief Negotiator John McGuire stated: “This tentative agreement delivers increased contributions to the SAG pension plan, increased minimums, a significant gain in background actor numbers from 50 to 55 over the term of the contract, and it tracks the new media provisions achieved by other entertainment industry unions. The term of the agreement puts SAG in sync with the other unions, and does not include the extended term recently proposed by the AMPTP.”
Provisions of the proposed deal include:
• A two-year term of agreement concluding June 30, 2011.
• Effective annual increases comprised of 3.0% in wage increases and .5% in pension contributions upon ratification, and a 3.5% wage increase one year following ratification.
• A new media structure that tracks those achieved by other industry unions, resulting in gains for actors including:
• Jurisdiction on all derivative, made-for new media productions; automatic jurisdiction on all high-budget, original, made-for new media productions; plus jurisdiction on low budget original, new media productions that employee at least 1 covered performer.
• Residuals for exhibition of TV and Theatrical motion pictures on consumer pay platforms (Electronic Sell Through) at a greater percentage than those paid for DVD distribution.
• Residuals for ad-supported streaming of feature films and television programs.
• Residuals for derivative new media programs.
• Additional 5 covered background actors in feature films. From 50 to 53 covered background positions upon ratification of the contract, and from 53 to 55 covered background positions in year 2. Adds 1 covered background position in TV, from 19 to 20, upon ratification.
• Increased compensation for guest star premium from 7.5% to 10%.
• Increased trailer money break from $2,500 to $3,000, or more per week.
• Increased overtime money break for three-day performers from $2,700 to $3,000.Ratification ballots will be mailed to eligible SAG members in early May, with an expected return date at the end of the month.
Tabulation will occur immediately upon the conclusion of balloting.Bargaining for a successor agreement to the 2005 SAG TV/Theatrical Contract began on April 15, 2008.
Here's the statement by the AMPTP:
The new AMPTP-SAG agreement is the eighth major labor agreement reached by AMPTP since the start of 2008 and the 312th such agreement in AMPTP's 27-year history. Because both sides were willing to compromise we now have an agreement that will provide SAG members with meaningful wage boosts, pension increases, first-class health benefits, and a complete set of new media rights and residuals. With this agreement in place, our entire industry can work together to overcome the enormous economic challenges before us.
tv/theatrical goes out with a con statement. that’s it. exact details? it’s the aftra contract, basically. individual arbitration for the force majeure claims, instead of collective representation from the union, what we had.
look, everything IS changing. sag dithered when it should have dathered and the people responsible for that are the moderates. I have criticized mf for not just sending out the damn sav when they had the chance, but the active undermining by masur and freed and ufs and all the others would probably have doomed it, given the ridiculous 75% number.
BUT – they should have done it – gotten it out there, and then busted ass to do the best they could to get the 75%. But, they dithered, and now what is going out is the road to ruin folks.
MF people will run for the aftra board, a couple will get elected, and they’ll be so far back-benched they’ll have them on a satellite feed from the roof. it won’t make a damn bit of difference. sag, in my opinion suffered from the delusion alan rosenberg had, that this was a no-brainer – can’t sign it – period. strike if necessary – period, the support will be there.
wrong. if mf made a huge mistake – that was it – expecting the mods to see it that way. the mods immediately began asking the appeasement questions “well, it won’t be SO bad, will it?” and “we can go get in three years if it is, right?”
wrong.
it was at THAT moment that alan and doug should have shifted into overdrive and just used every single tool at their disposal. instead, recognizing the intensity of the threat and the fear it was generating, they dithered, and they tried to “lobby” the membership – thinking, then hoping, then praying, common sense would instill the spine needed to confront the threat.
wrong. I sympathize with their trying to give it a long time to gestate, feeling they would see the membership come around, but, to me, it was like – the guy pulls a gun? you don’t spend 8 months trying to talk him out of it. you jump him immediately, hope nobody gets hurt, and expect that somebody will, but the guy with the gun will be out of the picture.
that’s what happened. there was WAY too much “now – hold on big-fella! (the amptp) let’s be reasonable,” when of course, they had no intention of being reasonable, and never did.
so, where are we now? we have a commercial contract and a tv/theatrical contract going out for ratification, only needing 50 percent. both completely caved on new media, both gave serious roll-backs and give-aways, and there is absolutely no precedent to predict with anything but foolishness, that the reclaimed retro-activity will unite the creative unions in two years.
dga sits smug, feeling they got it right, right off the bat – think they’re going to admit they were wrong and join sag in 2 short years? dream on. wga? well, at least they had the balls to strike, but they did NOTHING to support sag, even though sag walked their picket lines for 100 days. NOTHING.
AFTRA? Uh…
so, how are we ever going to get out of this, reclaim a fair deal in new media, reclaim clip consent, reclaim product placement protections, reclaim collective bargaining on force majeure – that, and other stuff we’re on the verge of giving away?
honestly – if I had to guess? we won’t. if the contract passes, the world changes. for good, for the middle class actor. it’s just going to be a question of how bad we just fucked ourselves.
From what I understand at this moment, individual actors under this deal would be left to fend for themselves on force majeure. The whole point behind a union in the first place is strength through solidarity, or, put another way, uniting for strength. U4S’ actions aren’t exactly aligning with their moniker here.
For all of the reasons that we have discussed here and elsewhere, SAG voters should vote NO on the tentative agreement, and send David White back to the negotiating with a clear mandate to do what new national majority corporate appeasers (the self-styled “moderates”) said he would do – negotiate something much better than what he inherited after they fired Doug Allen.
Overall, I agree with Matt Mulhern. The SAV should have gone out post-haste. Barring that, the LBF should gone out neutral. In effect, the LBF is going out kind of neutral now – with pro and con statements, SAG voters are being asked to decide for themselves if they want this turkey.
IMHO, Membership First really should have put organizing into overdrive as well. For a union our size, the number of personnel in our organizing staff was worse than pathetic even before Todd Amorde (and who can blame him???) ankled.
While the WGA let the United Hollywood website lapse, in fairness to them SAG didn’t give the writers anything specific that they could do. The WGA was keeping its powder dry for an actual labor action I think, and if we’d gotten our 75 percent, the writers have been prepared to hit the pavement with us.
As it is, I am joining those opposed to the tentative agreement – and I couldn’t care which faction, if any, they align themselves with – to see if we can’t rally at least 50 percent+1 to send White back to the table with the moguls to get us deal worthy of ratification.
This is a bad deal. What was gained by firing Doug Allen? Now in addition to paying Allen’s salary, the membership is paying for David White and John McGuire as well. Vote no, and remember the union busters—James Cromwell, Amy Brenneman, Richard Masur, Ned Vaughn and company in the next election.
I wish people, Nikki included, would stop with the canard that we’re ‘going to lose residuals.’ We’ve already lost them! I did a lot of hour long television in the last few years and how many episodes re-ran? Next to none. The days of the prime-time network rerun are already gone. What this contract does successfully is give us a mechanism to share in a new stream of income.
I’m fine with this contract and will be happy to vote yes. It’s great to finally see some pragmatism in our union.
Excellent! Time for us all to get back to work! The 200 and some odd films can begin production, the pilots can be shot w/SAG brothers and sisters; it’s all good. Smile everyone, it’s back to the grind!
Absolutely voting NO, as are most actors that I know. And for the trolls – yes – I am a regularly working actor.
I remember my labor law class. I remember being a union steward and strike votes. Now, I guess I can say it this is the death of unions. First they killed the UAW- pay cuts or bankruptcy. Second they tried to kill SEIU. Third, they killed SAG. What’s next the teamsters?
How can one have a union when individual members have to bargain for residuals? Question for AMTP and all the unions. How can one side keep all the money and the other side say OKAY BOSS, pay us when you want, when you want and if you don’t pay us it’s okay. Residuals, displacement etc etc. And don’t say it’s the economy. GE 38 billion in revenue
9.8 billion in movie profits last year 2008.
Yikes, when they stop residuals and reduce A list salaries and cancel movies like Halo .Well, if I was a studio exec I would be wondering which new plane to buy, heating up the coals for the villa in Fiji and thinking I can adopt another five kids from Mali.
Vote yes and cut your own throat. Vote no and let the studio cut your throat. This is a sad contract burn it like the UAW did to that Fiat memo. Either way you will not get the money and still pay your fired negotiator.
The deal stinks.
But, it really is too late to fix it now. The producers will further obfuscate and they know, deep down, that the fractured SAG will have to capitulate in the end.
Again, this stinks.
Unfortunately, once WGA, DGA and IATSE basically took the Producer’s ‘take it or leave it’ offers, SAG was stuck in the wilderness.
The aforementioned unions plus SAG should begin IMMEDIATELY plan for the next contracts a few years down the road.
TOGETHER this time! The Producers succesfully employed a divide and conquer strategy to a T.
Start planning NOW union leaders.
NOW.
Re: the AMPTP statement, “Because both sides were willing to compromise…” I had to hold my breath to stop laughing out loud in public. What a crock of shit.
With over 46% of the board saying “no” on this contract, it’s plain that the membership should consider this fact very carefully – who said “no” and why. Remember who (on the board) is fighting for members and who is trying to weaken SAG to merge with AFTRA. Do not forget this!
If this contract passes it will be the end of the middle class actor. I happen to think that’s a bad thing, but that’s just me, the middle class actor.
If this passes every single actor I know will have to get a job. It will be impossible to support a family. Over the last three years I have seen my income drop from 120K to 65K and I work a pretty fair amount. Residuals represented 40% of my income. If you are going to do away with them, you have to seriously ramp up the initial payment.
Look for a lot more actors who do it as a hobby not a profession, and that will do nothing but drop the level of talent all the big money making stars will have at their sides. Maybe nobody will notice. I mean, look at the crap they watch night after night now.
“Excellent! Time for us all to get back to work! The 200 and some odd films can begin production, the pilots can be shot w/SAG brothers and sisters; it’s all good. Smile everyone, it’s back to the grind!”
Are you fucking kidding me?!! “Dirk Diggler”: Another worthless troll from Omaha who knows nothing about the industry or how it works. What productions were shut down because of the prolonged negotiations? What pilots you inane ass?? NBC took 5 hours off the prime-time slot for another talk/variety show, so there’s 5 less hours of prime time scripted television, you moron.
Dear Dirk:
Please go back to the Hannah Montana fan site they’re debating the new spring colors, your input is needed there.
Also, please die in a fire.
Hey “Future Actor as Hobbyist” — And exactly how many days did you have to toil at your hobby to earn that 65K?? Be thankful you earned well above the national median without having an actual full time job. God forbid you (gasp) work in between acting gigs in order to support a 6 figure lifestyle. You chose the path in the hope of winning the Brad Pitt lottery. Clearly you didn’t. So re-evaluate or be thankful for what you get. How much money are you really supposed to be paid for standing on your mark and reciting memorized words?? As if it matters whether it’s you or one of the next 99 people who look and sound just like you?? Take the contract — continue to be overpaid and enjoy it.
Hey “person with an actual job”… news flash… actors don’t choose to work sporadically. That’s just the nature of the business. The gigs come sporadically. There is no regular 9-to-5 grind. Those who land a series gig can count on long, long hours up to 7 days per week when shooting. And then nothing for months at a time. It’s not about choosing not to work. It’s about getting work when it’s available.
And these AMPTP trolls would be funny if they weren’t so damn transparent. Oh, they’re still funny…
If actors vote for this contract, you deserve anything and everything that happens to you.
Person with an actual Job -
What so many people who do have a full-time job do not know about the creative professions in Hollywood – acting, writing, and to some extent directing – is the initial and ongoing investment in time and money to start a career and keep it going. I know a successful television and film actor who – after some promising guest star spots on TV and smaller supporting roles in films – spent a full year auditioning and networking, and he couldn’t get arrested. He hung tough, and things are better for him now, but he relied on residuals and teaching acting to get him through the lean times.
The question you should ask about that average middle-class working actor is, how much are they really making per-hour after deducting their business-related expenses and factoring in the hours they spend training, preparing, auditioning, networking, reading scripts, and taking meetings. And, like that now-successful television actor, you have to be prepared – financially and emotionally – for lean times. Add all that up, and from a strictly financial standpoint, the industry may not be as attractive as it looks.
Hey, “Person With an Actual Job”- How about you become “Person With an Actual Clue” when it comes to what actors truly do. If you think it’s just about “standing on your mark and reciting memorized words”, then I guess directors of photography just “hit record”, directors just “tell people where to stand”, and writers just “type some stuff for people to say”. Idiot.
whining is all good and fun, but just like in life, there’s an end to each episode (or like in tV?), and then you move on to the next one.
sag made calculations, good or bad, that ran aground when the economy hit all of us from behind. undercut by aftra? possibly (i think so). poorly represented by angry radicals that should have played it better? (anyone’s call). undercut by appeasing moderates? (i tend to think so).
but it’s time for the monday morning/mourning quarterbacking to end. whether sag got screwed, or screwed themselves, or both, it’s time to do like a major league baseball team does. walk away without all the bitching, and prove who’s the best next year.
in this case sag wAs lucky enough to be able to prove that 2 years from now. whether the moderates were appeasers or not, they did the right thing in getting a 2-year contract. and now it’s time for all the bitchers and moaners to get to work on winning the ballgame (i.e. contract) next time around.
playing and replaying a game that’s over is really pathetic. and if you think this isn’t over for now, and that some groundswell of a ‘no’ vote will rise up from the red sea, listen real hard (to mix metaphors): the fat lady has just sung.
she’s been singing since 10 months ago, when no strike authorization vote went out. time to listen and plan for 2 years hence.
Every other union has signed a variation of this contract. There will be no renegotiation. It is sign this or strike, and we’ll never get 75% to strike. And even if by some miracle we strike, we’ll sign it eventually.
What on earth are people thinking by campaigning for a “no” vote? Delay raises, eat a strike, and then end up with the same contract anyway?
It’s why standards need to be tightened. Hobbyist actors who work a day every two years shouldn’t be able to vote.
HANK- you are one funny guy….
hope you get a sitcom! Seriously.
@ Hank Yablonski:
Bitter much? If you really care, yes feature production did slow down considerably during this SAG action. I think it’s true that a lot of that was just due to the economy, to funding sources drying up, to the general anxiety of where the industry is headed. But guild anxiety, particularly involving such a key guild as SAG, played its part as well. More importantly, and more damningly, was what it did to television. It’s not so much that television production slowed down, it just shifted nearly completely to AFTRA. Everyone at the TV Studios realized that SAG was a mess, that because of the shift to digital technology it was no longer necessary to use SAG, and that AFTRA was not only less likely to interrupt production, they were cheaper.
That’s where we got f***ed if you really want to know. Despite the fact that our leadership was constantly discussing “new media” they didn’t know enough to strategize the shift in camera technology.
So, instead of taking your frustration out on some anonymous person named “Dirk Diggler” you can take it out on the people from our own union who completely dropped the ball….
Person With an actual Job:
When you get the gig, that’s the vacation. The actual job of being an actor is going out on auditions, and trying to find representation. You don’t get paid for that.
(Person with an actual job) How dare you insult someone by implying acting isn’t a real job! Actors constantly have to prove to others that they have a legitimate job. Nobody asks a surgeon ‘well what surgeries have you done lately?’ but as soon as someone says they are an actor people have to know what they’ve ‘been’ in lately. Kudos to ‘Future Actor’ who has done so well because it ain’t easy in the business! I also totally agree with what he/she said, passing this contract will be the end for many middle class actors. Many have children, mortgages, etc and aren’t doing as well so they will be forced to drop acting altogether. This tentative contract is still unacceptable in my opinion, most people I know are voting no but there are those few who are just so frustrated with how long this has dragged that they will accept anything at this point.
Hulu is coming to a phone near you. It’s not “New Media” anymore. It’s media and the creative guilds deserve to be paid. The time to deal with this is now, not in two years. http://www.businessinsider.com/hulu-iphone-app-coming-soon-badass-2009-4
I’ve said it before on this page – and got smacked by folks who disagreed, but maybe now that we are being asked to accept the exact same contract they were shoving down our throats months ago, I’ll say it again: We have no power folks! Of all the creative unions we have the very least! Whether you believe it or not, the producers think union actors are replaceable – and they proved it after our last strike. The commercial world has never been the same! Non-union actors are all over the TV ads – and all over independent film – and given how many years it has been since that strike, I would say the producers are pretty happy with them!
And is anybody really surprised that the WGA didn’t support us? Why should they? They already stood up for what they believed in and put their houses and savings on the line. And they are stuck with the crappy contract they got regardless of what we get, so they just keep their head down and collect their small checks.
And, by the way, we NEEDED them, that’s why we supported them! The better deal they got, the better it would be for us. But they didn’t need us anymore and so they didn’t support us. That simple.
And that’s the way it has always been. No one supported us during the commercial strike either.
THE ONLY SOLUTION IS FOR ALL THE CREATIVE UNIONS TO NEGOTIATE TOGETHER!
The threat of writers, actors and crew striking at the same time – or even implimenting a work slow-down – is the only thing that will force the producers to negotiate “in good faith” as if they respected us. (I don;t include the directors in this for obvious reasons).
Yes, it will be tough to deal with all the egos and differing needs, but we deal with that already and get very little for it – as evidenced by our paying Doug Allen, David White and the other guy to get us — what exactly? the same contract AFTRA came up with. Not much bang for the buck in that decision.
There is power in numbers! Thats the basis of distributive bargaining! How can you make the other side think you have more power than they do? Banding together is the only way – or show me another solution?
The moderates in our union screwed us because they proved to the producers that our BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) was not all that good – cause our only choice was to strike and they cried so loud it was obvious many didn’t want to and would eventually cave – which is what happened.
If the producers thought THEIR best alternative to a negotiated agreement was to see ALL THE UNIONS WALK OUT, they would have negotiated with us quite differently.
The AMPTP, the WGA, the DGA, SAG and IATSE all need each other. We are interdependent. Let’s use that to our advantage, rather than allow the AMPTP to divide us and conquer us…which they did this time.
Once more, for the deaf.
What ‘better’ contract could SAG have gotten that would be passed over for a CHEAPER contract by going next door to AFTRA?
What ‘get’ wouldn’t have gotten us further left in the dust by producers comparing the two agreements and making the correct business decision?
What were we suppose to ‘hold out for’ that would not have ultimately left us holding the bag?
It’s the harnessing logic inherent in the predicament of two unions fighting over the same territory that keeps us from getting anything substantially better.
If one pretends that AFTRA’s deal doesn’t exist, then one can rail with fervor at the flaws in the SAG deal and claim there were heaps left on the table; but if one faces the facts, it’s an altogether different story.
As long as those who refuse to face up to the facts as they are, but rather make them up to suit their spleen, then we will hear more of the same from an angry knot of lost ones firmly clutching their blindfolds.
Hey, “Person With an actual Job” – I’ll refrain from calling you names because that’s generally not allowed here, nor is it mature. (And also because I think you already know what you are and you like being that person…) But, remember that scene in “Roxanne” when that fat guy in the bar attempts to insult Steve Martin by calling him “big nose”? Remember the outcome? (Hint: you’re that guy – or girl.)
You sound like one more non-actor who thinks what we do is easy. “…standing on your mark and reciting memorized words”. Remarks like that are shallow, ill-informed, and at the very least cheap. Very cheap. And this during a time when all guilds should be standing together to help each other keep our futures intact. You’re livin’ in the dark ages, pal.
Yes, acting pays well (when it pays) – just like many lucrative jobs out in the world for which people study, learn and struggle to climb that professional ladder. And our pay structure (including residuals) was set up many years ago by people from both sides who understood what was needed to make quality content – in both TV and Film. None of that need has changed for either side. Creatives (actors, writers and directors) in this industry are paid residuals – period – and there’s a long list of reasons why. That’s old news. [people like] You think it’s easy? Try it sometime.
I believe most actors (like myself) would be willing to accept a bit less pay during these tough financial times – IF the studios were hurting, which they’re not. Record box office these days, if you hadn’t read a paper recently. Millions being made on the web, with millions more to come. No, they’re “crying poor” and using this current economic crisis as a hammer to crush residuals completely, a goal which they’ve stated publicly in the past.
What we’re fighting for is less about what we get paid than how we get paid; i.e. profit participation (residuals). Actors are paid much less up front than writers or directors, which means we have to rely on residuals (more than those other guilds) to earn a living. Very simple.
We are not the multi-million-dollar, above-the-line actor/movie stars out there (whom you seem to deride). We are the corps of what’s being called ‘the middle class actor’ – the heart and soul of on-camera content – not the movie stars. Producers will try but they can’t do much professional quality production without professional quality actors. Those actors hold SAG cards, my friend.
And as to that “fat guy in the bar” with Steve Martin? A schooled, SAG card-carrying character actor, who made that scene perfect. Anything less… well, you get the point, don’t you?
In response to ANOTHER WORKING ACTOR’s comment “…I wish people, Nikki included, would stop with the canard that we’re ‘going to lose residuals.’ We’ve already lost them! I did a lot of hour long television in the last few years and how many episodes re-ran? Next to none..”
I too do hour long drams and I have experienced a tremendous showdown this year and have lived off of my residuals from the shows I did this and last season. So speak for yourself my friend or do better shows because for a lot of us residuals still mean everything. Almost everyshow I have done has rerun in primetime or otherwise, thereby helping me survive as some “name” actor comes in and swoops up my Guest Stars (more power to them, do what ya gotta do). The frame of mind “its your problem not mine” is what brings down unions. SHAME ON YOU.
I WOULD RATHER NOT WORK FOR A YEAR AND FIGHT THAN DEAL WITH A LIFETIME OF LOWERED WAGES. fools
“What were we suppose to ‘hold out for’ that would not have ultimately left us holding the bag?” –Todd Waring
Try this out, it’s simple & fair.
“When the companies get paid, actors get paid a percentage of that”
It’s now your team that not only fumbled the ball but got sacked in your own endzone by AMPTP.
Let me give you another chestnut:
If you don’t like what AFTRA pays don’t take AFTRA work. In fact resign from the outlet mall of entertainment labor unions and demand more (How do you think the execs get the big bucks, by begging Oliver Twist style to their boards of directors, “please sirs, I want some more”? Hell no, they insist on getting paid and so should you.). If you don’t believe you’re worth it why should anyone else?
As my mother used to say (may she rest in peace) you can’t be a doormat for others if you don’t first willingly lay down for them. AFTRA’s deal and SAGs require you to prostrate yourself before the execs so they can leave the tracks of their Guccis or Jimmy Choos on your back. You don’t have to do that at all.
a lot of people here are commenting that the writers “did nothing to help” during the sag negotiations. what were the writers supposed to do? talk to the producers on your behalf and get you a better deal? negotiate the contract for you? magically give you a strike authorization?
had sag struck you would have seen a lot of red shirts walking with you. god helps those who helps themselves.
I believe there’s a “Most Favored Nation” clause in the other unions’ agreements – if they give SAG more, then they’ll have to renegotiate with the other unions as well. If so, they screwed SAG pretty well. Take this deal, and all the unions get together next time. Well, maybe not the DGA. They do what they want anyway.
Person with an actual job…
You probably work in finance with the other geniuses. Acting as a career is brutal, especially when you have kids. You have very little idea what an actor goes through to stay an actor. Perhaps you should consider it before you share your shallow opinions.
And to Roberta Reardon, thank you for neutering two unions! I can’t wait to vote your ineptitude out of the office but I sure hope you’ll have the courtesy to leave the planet first.
Very similar story to the commercial contract…
This is the same type of residual give-away we saw with DVD. In a few years, when ABC, NBC, and CBS start calling themselves ‘dot coms’ instead of broadcast networks, and even local stations are in the same boat, there will be no over the air reruns to generate residuals. What we now call ‘Cable tv’ will soon be a wire to your router – THE INTERNET. If we’re making zero or close to zero residuals on everything then (which we will be under this contract) we are done earning any sort of real living in this business.
Nice job protecting any long-term prospects for actors working in television, SAG. It’s gonna be just a hobby for those who can still afford time off from waiting tables very soon. What did you gain by firing Doug Allen and throwing away over $1,000,000 in our dues money in the process? NOTHING.
To the jealous fucking ASSHOLE that “real job” is:
When producers make money off creatives’ work, those who created the work that makes the money get a cut.
PERIOD.
It’s absolutely criminal that ignorant jackasses like you, who likely could never create anything meaningful in their entire lives, don’t grasp the simple fairness in that concept. Instead, you support the equivalent of intellectual serfdom — making the rich who can’t create richer off the backs of those who can.
If you understood the first thing about how hard it is to create, you’d know how morally bankrupt your mindset is.
Todd Waring- Obfuscate all you like but maybe when you’re done with that you can find some fancy words to tell us deaf which of the roll backs you’re good with giving up. It’s not a matter of living with a contract that lacks improvements and gains. It’s a matter on giving up thing that we’ve struck for in the past and that once given up we’ll never get back. You do however make the case very effectively for all actors under SAG.
Sad but true, person with a real job is sorta correct. Realistically, an acting career is a passion, not a right. Just as investors and studios are exposed to losses if the picture underperforms, the same should be true on the other side. Residuals are silly … the actors who make a difference get pre-CBE deals and gross corridors anyhow. The rest are just cannon fodder and shouldn’t be allowed to share in the upside before there is one. After all (like Lew Wasserman said), you don’t pay the plumber a residual every time you flush the toilet. I’d rather see a living wage increase (minimums) and the union reduce the requirements for insurance (SAG needs to point the finger on itself for that one), as well as a buyout on all residuals at a minimum. The rest of the mumbo jumbo just cripples the industry and costs actors more jobs … time to wake up, the world has changed … and it values actors and product far less than it used to … so everyone needs to share in the hit.
Todd Waring-
Your argument has one fatal flaw: FAVORED NATIONS. If SAG gets a better deal DGA, WGA, and AFTRA contracts automatically jump up to the better terms.
On a side note, having worked with deaf performers, I think your assessment that deaf= stupid is as uniformed as the rest of your rant.
“Sad but true, person with a real job is sorta correct. Realistically, an acting career is a passion, not a right. Just as investors and studios are exposed to losses if the picture underperforms, the same should be true on the other side. Residuals are silly … the actors who make a difference get pre-CBE deals and gross corridors anyhow. The rest are just cannon fodder and shouldn’t be allowed to share in the upside before there is one. After all (like Lew Wasserman said), you don’t pay the plumber a residual every time you flush the toilet. I’d rather see a living wage increase (minimums) and the union reduce the requirements for insurance (SAG needs to point the finger on itself for that one), as well as a buyout on all residuals at a minimum. The rest of the mumbo jumbo just cripples the industry and costs actors more jobs … time to wake up, the world has changed … and it values actors and product far less than it used to … so everyone needs to share in the hit.”
Dear Ehrud:
I don’t know what AMPTP fan boi chat room you just crawled out of, but allow me to educate you on one or two points since you clearly don’t work in this industry.
1) Actors are not plumbers, you simplistic douchebag. Most actors and writers are constantly pounding the pavement (or their agents doors) looking for work. In television, some actors audition for roles weekly but maybe, MAYBE only get one or two gigs per year. The residuals help them through the times when they aren’t working which is more often than not. If the studios are profiting from the re-use of their work, why are the actors and writers not entitled to similar participation?
2) All non A-List actors are CANNON FODDER???!!! FUCK YOU!
3) Clearly you’ve never received a residual check that saved your ass, allowing you to pay your mortgage, feed your kids or keep the lights on. I have. So, fuck you twice.
4) If everyone needs to share in the “hit” as you call it, could you please tell me what “hits” Les Moonves, Peter Chernin and the coke snorting monkeys at NBC have taken? You know, for the “team”. G’head, I”m waiting…. I hear crickets. Fuck you thrice.
5) You’re right about one thing: Acting is a passion. As a working writer, I know that for most actors it’s a calling that nourishes the soul and is a career every one of them is proud of whether they’re working or not. I am sorry your life is so empty and unfulfilled, but that’s the great thing about watching our work; you get to live vicariously through us.
Nobody is claiming they have a right to work in this business, but we do have a right to be treated fairly and respectfully. Again, sorry McDonalds has treated you so poorly. Back to your mother’s basement for you.
In closing, please die in a fire with Dirk. He needs the company.
To: “a writer”
“a lot of people here are commenting that the writers “did nothing to help” during the sag negotiations. what were the writers supposed to do? talk to the producers on your behalf and get you a better deal? negotiate the contract for you? magically give you a strike authorization?”
Um, let’s see… maybe…
Write?
actor/director/WRITER
Reply to Comment by 8moviesfiveplays — April 19, 2009 @ 8:04 pm: Thank you for getting it !!!
Now if we can get the rest to understand what a union is really for, we all will be in a better place.
Comment by Ace — April 19, 2009 @ 9:15 pm: “who said “no” and why. Remember who (on the board) is fighting for members and who is trying to weaken SAG to merge with AFTRA. Do not forget this!”
So true..Maybe someone should put forth a motion to Publicly show how each boardmember voted and let’s see who voted no on the motion.
“Excellent! Time for us all to get back to work! The 200 and some odd films can begin production”….Sounds like bargaining leverage to me,
“And is anybody really surprised that the WGA didn’t support us? ” What Bullshit!! We are not out on strike.
Comment by meredith — April 20, 2009 @ 10:57 am:
“THE ONLY SOLUTION IS FOR ALL THE CREATIVE UNIONS TO NEGOTIATE TOGETHER!”
What Bullshit again…Think about it…The key word is Think.
All it would take is one union low-balling the contract and then we are all screwed. That’s why I feel that all of our contract coming up at once is not a good idea.
I actually received a residual that netted $1 today. Well, guys’n'gals that’s 100% more than you’re going to get with this contract!
Well, between “Meredith” and “Emerson”, seems like the new shill mantra is “they’ve defeated us SAG-sters, so lets just lick our wounds and do the best we can”.
I don’t know who these people are, but they claim to be of us – SAG members – and seem to have “seen the light”, and though it ain’t pretty, the damage has already been done. We’ve supposedly “already lost … residuals”, as per Emerson. Meredith chants, “We have no power folks!”
Complete horseshit.
If you two people really are SAG members, you need to bone up on what a union does – and doesn’t do. We don’t give up before the battle is over. We don’t tell our union brothers and sisters that there’s no hope. You both absolutely have the right to air your opinions here (and most places), but do yourselves and your union a favor – stop being defeatist.
We, as union members (still and always) have every power we ever had – we have our vote(s), which is everything. Though our own management (The National Majority) has kowtowed (for reasons known only to them) to the AMPTP, that is absolutely no reason the membership has to do the same. This guild is run by us – the membership – not the board of un-directors, who have failed at almost every turn since their coup d’etat.
If a strike [authorization] is needed to get the AMPTP to play fair with us, so be it. It would be a shame for the moguls to let it go that far, but they’re playing tough – we can too.
But will we? Will we find our balls and play tough right back at them? Nothing stopping that except people who believe we’re already defeated. I repeat: there is nothing stopping us from getting a fair contract, except ourselves.
Think about that. Believe it, because it’s true.
This ain’t over ’til it’s over. Almost half of the National Board rejects this latest contract offer, for obvious reasons. They know that the voting membership (still and always) has the absolute power to fight for a fair deal. They know what rejecting this offer means, and what we, as guild members, will have to do about it if the referendum fails.
All it takes is enough of us to stand up and say “NO!” Each one of us has a vote; each one of us has the power to say “NO”, and the repercussions of those joined “NO” voices is deafening.
It’s really that simple. This is still a contract negotiation. Nothing is a done deal until the membership ratifies a contract.
Nothing is a done deal.
Dear Ehrud,
You (and Lew Wasserman) are right. You don’t pay a plumber everytime you flush the toilet. But if you (or Lew) want to keep using the same toilet when you move to a different house or even to a different room, ya gotta pay a plumber (and me) again. Or maybe you (or Lew) wanna turn that toilet into a sink or a bathtub. Gotta call the plumber again. Let’s say you wanna bust that toilet apart and turn the ceramic pieces into a table top. Ya gotta call the plumber again and maybe even a furniture designer and builder etc.
As long as the toilet is a toilet in the same bathroom, you (and Lew) are paid up. As soon as you wanna use that toilet in a different way or in a different room, ya gotta pay – again. Not the same as you paid originally for the toilet, just a little less to re-use it how you want.
Residuals were conceived because movies were made for movie theatres. When TV came along, suddenly movies that had long since realized their revenue life in the theatres were pulled off the shelves to generate new revenues in a new medium. These revenues were called “residual value”. It meant that there was “left over” “unforseen” value in previously completed product. TV shows were originally intended for one airing. When they were re-aired, a “residual” payment was in order because creative salaries included pay only for initial use. This kept salaries lower and gave maximum flexability to the network to re-run or not. After all why overpay for something that will only run once. Re-runs generated new revenue so “residual” pay was due for the “residual value” of the product. If there is no residual value then there is no residual (left over) salary due. Get it?
As for anyone on screen or behind the camera except the “star” being cannon fodder. Do you hire just anybody to fix your toilet? Cannon fodder? Call my company and you’ll never call anyone else. We do an expert job, are dependable, reasonably priced, and responsive whatever your plumbing needs. We’re pros and we are union. I can also refer you to any number of tradesmen just like me and the company I work for that can do anything you could need around your house – electricians, appliance repair, carpenters, painter/plasterers, roofers, masons (brick, mortar, and tile), interior and exterior designers, architects, excavators, ironworkers, etc. – They are also pros and they are also union. We are ready to do whatever you imagine needs to be done with expertise, efficiency and dependability and, God knows in this economy, we need the work. Call us and get it done right the first time or put an add in the paper and see who shows up and take your chances. You may get lucky or you might spend a fortune trying to save a few pennies and watch your house fall down around you. Cannon fodder indeed.
What a pathetic lot! “Actual Job” has a point – someone is bitching about making $65K for a part-time job! Get a life people. You’d never make that much money in any other field working part-time. You’re overpaid for what you do. There wouldn’t be a million and one people begging for the same job if you weren’t.
@Hank Yablonski
No offense Hank but far more than you need a good contract you need to get laid.
I do think there are good arguments for residuals for actors but sadly, other than “fuck you”, you haven’t made one of them.
It’s nice that residuals help actors pay the bills but this is not a BUSINESS argument for residuals. Most of us are free agents ultimately and if we can’t make deals to pay the bills then we should find other work. It’s sad but that’s capitalism. Remember, 75% of SAG makes less than $1,000.00 a year. And SAG has done absolutely nothing to help them. Should we? Or is that just the price of choosing this profession? There is much sweat being poured over the plight of the “middle class actor” when the actual amount of middle class actors in our union is less than 10%. FAR LESS than 10% actually but let’s just round up. So who should we be sweating over? It’s a tough question and I don’t have an answer.
The best argument for residuals is simply that it inspires the talent and helps the final product to give the artists involved at least some “ownership” of the final product. Since the last thing the studios want to do is give any real ownership they have caved in to the guilds and given some residuals. That’s the persuasive business argument you can make for them. And so if the studios want to use the best actors (which is the whole point of a skilled guild) they will have to pay these residuals.
The rest of it is arm twisting, strike threats, and people like you, Hank, who whine. Acting is an extremely tough, heartbreaking profession, a profession where the most respected guild still can’t keep 80% of their members employed enough to make the barest living. No SAG deal is going to change that. And let’s face it, no one in any faction of SAG is even trying.
Hey Hank, you’re a disease.
Okay let’s take a look at what will happen next. We (actors) will get our mailing asking us to agree to this piece of crap deal. Hopefully it will not be ratified by the membership. Then what? I would assume that the producers will go back to the waiting game and our weak leadership will sit on it’s hands and more money will be lost with everyone not working. So, why can’t we just get to the strike already? Seriously, why aren’t we being given the opportunity to vote on that!? I am sick to death of this. If we don’t strike and the waiting game continues guess who wins eventually? They do, because if we aren’t given an option to strike we eventually will wear down and accept these crappy terms. Our own leadership is wearing us down! This is treason. We must vote everyone of them out. All of them! And we must demand a strike vote right after we turn this piece of crap offer down.
To every SAG actor on here who will vote. Vote No on the TV/Theatrical and No on the Commercial. Why? Because of the “Favored Nations” clause. If we all vote no on both, the producers will have to give us better terms and if they don’t then we strike and I’m sure if not all but many other union members will ride the bus with us just so they can have the better terms too. Not one of my writer, director, etc friends are satisfied with their contract.
The TV series that I had one of the leads in is all over YOU TUBE…EVERY EPISODE…ALL 100 OF THEM…FREE!!! Another series that I had a lead role in is all over HULU…EVERY EPISODE…FREE!!! Thanks SAG! Once again you’ve buried your empty head in the sand and let us down!
Problem with the plumbing analogy today is that film’s today are more like a port-a-potties than a sturdy, old school john you can enjoy pissing in for life (and who moves a toilet around their house … you either buy a new one or move … duhhh … silly renter).
And since MOST films don’t make money in the theatrical space, maybe we should make all deals based on DVD/VOD/Television economics and then give a theatrical bonus if it actually reaches profit there … makes sense, right? After all, films are bought for their “DVD” value, not theatrical (as that’s just advertising and concession sales these days after the P&A is recouped).
NO!
It seems a lot of this is due to the destruction of the studio system where actors were employed by a studio under salary and appearance fees. I may not be correct but didn’t the “Stars” want an end to it so they could be in rival studios movies. Didn’t the studios help actors with agents, publicity and put a lot of actors in a variety of roles. It seems that now you are all independent contractors who the studios have no loyalty to or interest in promoting or reason too other than the “Stars” who they can sign to exclusive deals. Everyone else is on their own. Maybe the old studio system wasn’t so bad after all.
Real World,
You clearly have no understanding of what’s being discussed here. Please educate yourself before you share your useless notions. In fact, just shut the fuck up. What world do YOU live in? Probably finance. We are actors trying to survive as we navigate a rapidly shifting terrain while the studios seek to minimize their operating expenses. Do you believe the studios/corporations have any regard for an actor’s financial survival who’s not Clooney or Hanks or any other sellout? NO. We have to fend for ourselves and the present negotiation is about our future and our ability to exist professionally. It’s not about getting overpaid as most of us don’t even have health insurance you twit! What world do you live in? You probably make several times what we do so again, shut the fuck up.
Vote no. If you agree to this contract, forget any possibility of making a living. If you question this, see how much you made in Basis Cable and DVD residuals your entire career and try and buy a sandwich.
In this age of massive, out-of-control corporatism, we have only each other to rely on. It’s called a UNION.
Welcome to the real world.
Very astute observation, Brian … just like Major League Baseball learned with the Kurt Flood rule … you might give actors greater financial freedom via free agency, but without certain controls the studio (or sports franchise) own desire to win will cause them to spend irrationally and thus send the whole system into dire financial straights where everyone loses big time.
As for the unions, if you want floors on talent deals, then you should also be prepared to accept ceilings (like a salary cap) to ensure irrational exuberance doesn’t break the bank and re-distribute all the wealth to a few stars (while the rest starve) … just look at MLB baseball this off-season where you have the same thing (5 free agents with mega-deals and the rest with league minimum of no offers).
love’s labors lost
“It’s nice that residuals help actors pay the bills but this is not a BUSINESS argument for residuals. Most of us are free agents ultimately and if we can’t make deals to pay the bills then we should find other work. It’s sad but that’s capitalism.”
This is so twisted in it’s logic, so, unaware of it’s history, so condescending in it’s assumptions, and, ultimately, so DUMB, it’s hard to respond to.
Obviously “love” doesn’t need residuals. Or maybe, philosophically, she doesn’t agree with the concept and gives hers to charity. Who the fuck knows.
But to any working actor I know – this is just bizarre… WTF is she even talking about?
Hey Ace –
You’re barking up the wrong tree. In no way did I tip my hand regarding how I will vote. If there is anyone you want to vent your fury at it’s the moderates who pulled the coup – those are the people who undermined our negotiations. And you should have gone after them a long time ago before they were able to humiliate us and CONFIRM to the producers that we are a fractured opponent.
My “defeatist” attitude is all about realistic strategies for creating power in future negotiations.
Facts are facts, and we wouldn’t be stalemated without a contract for almost a year if we had any power. We’ve twisted ourselves into pretzels trying to get the producers to give an inch – and they haven’t budged. They don’t think they have to because we are not unified, and we don’t have a good alternative to the deal they are offering – er, shoving down our throats…and in this economy, we will never get public support in a strike – the writers didn’t even get it back when the economy was better (and yes, that is important).
While I love your wish list for your dream union qualities, ya gotta admit, it’s a little pollyanna-ish. Take your own advice and look up the definition of a union – what you got is not it. If you looked up distributive bargaining and negotiation strategies, you would see that in our current bargaining state, we have no power. Being the optimist I am – and not a defeatist, I look to the future and propose a strategy that will empower us to get what we need, what we deserve, and maybe even a little bit of what we want.
I still haven’t heard a reason why it shouldn’t be considered. Didn’t anyone notice that NONE of the unions got ANYTHING near a good deal? We gotta change something!
I am actually voting NO in defiance of those cowards and appeasers who took over the leadership and the despicable, oppressive behavior of the producers. They have not negotiated in good faith for one minute – tho now you can call me pollyanna, beccause in distributive bargaining, there is no “good faith”. It is win-lose to the death.
You are right tho that this one is not over til its over.
On Friday, April 17, after nearly a year of negotiating, a humbled and restructured Screen Actors Guild (SAG) reached tentative agreement with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) on a two-year contract. The following Sunday the 71-member board voted to recommend the agreement to the membership.
This contract is said to be no better than the one that’s been sitting on the table since last summer and virtually identical to the one accepted by Hollywood’s writers, directors and competing actors’ union, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA).
Because the original team (headed by SAG president Alan Rosenberg and chief negotiator Doug Allen) couldn’t get the deal it wanted, Hollywood is now piling on, accusing the previous leadership of having under-estimated the Alliance, misread its membership, and failed to anticipate the recession. Indeed, people are now saying the negotiations were an exorbitant waste of time and money.
Those people are wrong.
First, to criticize SAG for not accepting essentially the same contract that was accepted by the writers, directors and AFTRA is to miss the point. Yes, the WGA (Writers Guild of America) signed the contract, but they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table. Don’t forget: They took a 100-day strike to avoid signing it.
Why did they strike? Because the AMPTP’s offer didn’t adequately address critical issues, including New Media jurisdiction—an area which happens to be (along with residuals) one of SAG’s key agenda items. And Rosenberg’s committee believed the Alliance’s “last, best and final offer” was still inadequate. Second-guess them all you like, but don’t say they were wrong for wanting to secure the membership’s future.
Second, a quick look at the dynamics of contract negotiations tells us that there are two (and only two) considerations that matter: fairness and attainability. Obviously, what is deemed “fair” is subjective and is going to depend, by and large, on where you’re sitting. What’s fair to the union may not seem fair to management. That’s why you bargain.
As for “attainability,” that can never be known in advance, because a union never knows what can be gotten until it sits down at the table and tries to get it. Bargaining is not about sharing new ideas or reaching a consensus; it’s about trying to get very powerful and selfish people to part with their money.
Also, it’s important to remember that if organized labor had routinely accepted management’s “last, best and final offer”—if they took as gospel management’s assurance that such-and-such was simply unobtainable—we’d still be working 12-hour days with no health insurance or overtime premiums.
Third, management will use any excuse to avoid sweetening the pot. When there’s a recession, they’ll use the recession; when there’s a hurricane, they’ll use the hurricane; and when the economy is healthy and everyone is prospering, they’ll give you ten reasons why that prosperity is irrelevant to your negotiations.
And finally, the union knows what to expect. It knows that taking a hard line can be tricky, especially if management chooses to take an equally hard line. On one side, you have management, fully mobilized and dug in; on the other, you have your usual mix of union people: loyal members ready to battle, puzzled members wondering what’s going on, and nervous members ready to abandon ship at the first sign of trouble. It’s Negotiations 101.
Similarly, union bargainers will be regarded as either weak and gutless, or belligerent and stubborn. Unfortunately, there’s very little middle-ground. If a negotiating team puts the membership in jeopardy by asking for a strike vote, they’re militants; if they bring back a lousy contract and recommend ratification, they’re wimps.
So let’s get it right, people. Labor relations is a contact sport. Unless you take the view that your union should never fight, or that it should fight only when it’s assured of winning, you’re always going to risk having your butt handed to you in a sling. But if you’re not willing to fight for a decent contract, you don’t deserve one.
And not to rehash the past, but if SAG’s membership had remained faithful—if some of its big-name stars had not seen themselves as deputy ambassadors, and set off on their own bizarre, diplomatic mission—this bargain might have turned out differently.
Actually, it’s not over yet. SAG’s membership could still reject the offer, which would put the AMPTP in a bad spot. The Alliance can posture all it likes, but a membership rejection, particularly after a board recommendation, would be a body-blow.
David Macaray, a Los Angeles playwright and writer, former president and chief negotiator of the AWPPW, Local 672.
@ Brian:
Actors, or “stars”, as you call them, were considered property by the studios back in the days of the “studio system”. They were under contract with each respective studio, and loaned out to other studios in deals made by the heads of said studios. They were chattel. Said stars were trapped in a system which only served the masters – the moguls.
Then they put their foot (feet?) down and the industry burned. The Screen Actor’s Guild rose from those ashes.
Today, [BTL] actors aren’t independent contractors, as has been stated a few times here. Rather, we’re part of a guild – a union where we have some limited, organized rates and conditions so we don’t have to bargain or negotiate ‘on the day’ for whatever comes up. We are self-employed to some extent, but we work each job knowing that our guild has rates, rules and guidelines for almost any/every occurrence. That’s what guilds (unions) are supposed to do – protect its members. At least that’s how it was in the recent past.
There is no ‘loyalty’ from management (producers/studios) to actors, and there never was. This is the least loyal industry I’ve ever worked. Cash is king. Lining one’s pockets is de rigeur. Any actor is a damned fool if s/he believes and trusts in what has been promised without a written contract. And even then…?
And, happily, we’re not on our own. This is why our union is supposed to negotiate these things beforehand – before something comes up on set where we, as actors, don’t know all of the particulars. Nor should we have to know everything. An actor negotiating force majeure when s/he walks on the set is ridiculous. Does anybody think that will end well for the actor?
All of those actors who are owed force majeure money from the studios because of the WGA strike: does anybody think they would have done well if they’d been forced to give up that right when they took that gig? Yes, they would have bent under pressure to give that up to get the gig, and screwed themselves in the process.
(Side note: I’m not voting ‘yes’ on ANYTHING until those actors are paid in full – with late fees, interest, penalties, etc. Any union actor (SAG or AFTRA) worth his or her salt should feel the same – it could be you next time. Remember what “union” means, and what that body of people can do for you if you stand in solidarity with them in return…)
In past contracts these things were all laid out by our union agreements so that we actors don’t have to worry about them and we can focus on our craft, not our accounting.
Before I even see this turd of a contract offer, I can easily say that I’m voting ‘no’. This is not what unions do to themselves (or rather, to ourselves).
Heads will roll in the next board elections.
@ Dave Macary: thank you. Wise words from someone who knows what he’s talking about.
@ Meredith: I’m not furious, and I do know where to vent if I were. What I am is frustrated that a large group of the SAG membership has allowed themselves to be bullied – by management, by other unions, and now by our own National Majority board – into a morass of putty.
We do have power – every power we’ve ever had. And we are a union, and we still function under those principles and definitions. However, what we DO with that power, how we express it, is the problem.
When the writers walked out, producers still had many scripts in the pipeline for features, and many TV shows already written, so it was a slow to a stop. Not the case with SAG. Though the WGA got some of what it wanted from striking, their walkout didn’t have the impact a SAG strike would. When SAG stops working, everything stops.
I didn’t suggest how you’d vote but I am glad you found a reason to say “no” – there are so many reasons.
What I’m talking about, Mr. Mulhern, is that other than yelling and screaming what kind of real business argument can you make to the studios to pay residuals? Asking yourself this question can help you make a stronger argument than simply saying “f*** you, I want it.” I’ve been an actor AND a producer and have had to make arguments for deals going in both directions, why I might want more, or why I might not want to pay more. And I’ve been in the situation where my employer walked on my demands and I remained unemployed. And I’ve been in the situation where someone I wanted to hire walked on my offer and I ended up unable to hire them.
My deal logic was, when wearing my producer hat, to give the actor or writer or director some ownership in the project when I needed them to feel like more than a hired hand. We are in a creative business and creative people don’t do their best work as simply employees. If a bit of the gross will help them feel like they own it, then fine. If meaningful consultation on the choice of director will do it, fine. If I don’t feel like they have the potential to be worth it, sorry.
This is not an argument AGAINST residuals, it’s an argument FOR residuals. I believe in them but my point is that just screaming that you can’t pay your bills without them is not going to convince anyone to give them to you. Try that tactic in your next personal negotiation with a studio.
You not being able to pay your bills is either because of where your career is at, or maybe someone should be negotiating higher minimums for you. Hard to say. Acting is, as I’ve said, the toughest business in our business. My recommendation to actors who have the brains to see beyond their narrow roles and a love for storytelling…take the reins of this horse. Learn this business. Create stories. Produce them. Don’t be a hired hand.
matt mulhern:
one thing you continue to say bothers me, and that’s that rosenberg/allen should have sent out the sav immediately. if you’d been in the room, you’d know that they were going to do that, but then masur and his minions made a bunch of promises to play ball in a way that made even the most jaded hardliners pause to consider all the options.
it’s not all so cut-and-dried in terms of why rosenberg/allen did what they did in the very beginning. and there’s a lot more to it than you either know or acknowledge. now, i will give you that from the outside, things really do look the way you state them, and that’s understandable. it’s just not entirely accurate.
Mr. Jim Beam
I don’t like your jiffy john analogy but, hey, I was just attenuating Ehud’s reference to a Lew Wasserman analogy. I can hardly blame you for taking it one step further even though, if I read it right, you’re wrong. That’s what I love about these boards – how far can we stretch a stupid comment attributed to someone none of us actually knew. I’m working on it…..maybe if I consumed a jigger or two of your alias? Peace.
love’s labors lost
You need to understand: what you are arguing is very, very limited in scope and does not factor into this argument for the VAST majority of the middle-class actors this will effect.
“Higher minimums” do not EXIST for actors anymore. “Quotes” do not EXIST for actors anymore. I don’t know if you remember his piece MONTHS ago, and I know he’s now supporting the other side, but when Peter Coyote wrote HE has no quote anymore, unless you’re more of a name than Peter Coyote, and I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say you’re not – you betray a basic misunderstanding of the realities facing middle-class actors.
And it’s irrelevant to speak in terms of “they don’t HAVE to pay residuals.” You don’t HAVE to pay your taxes. But it’s the law. They don’t HAVE to pay residuals, But right now? It’s codified in OUR CONTRACT that they DO have to. Something long-fought for and protected fiercely over the years. You disrespect those who came before you and achieved that life-saving benefit for actors, which we’ve had for DECADES by speaking of with such disregard.
If we sign this deal? It will no longer be the case.
That distinction is certainly obvious to me, and to basically ANYONE I’ve discussed it with, but you are apparently an actress/producer who feels:
a. Where does it say producers “have” to pay residuals? (answer: the SAG contract)
and
b. As an actress you’re such a big swingin’ dick you cop the attitude “hey MY agent gets me above scale, so I can pay MY bills no prob, so, what’s YOUR complaint?”
Well, I got news for you sister. YOU are either full of shit, OR you’re a little above the pay grade of 95% of the union – because that is NOT the experience of the actors this contract is a problem for. You might want to wrap your head around that and do a little research before you spout off again in such a dismissive, condescending manner about people’s “careers not being up to par, so why is that the producers fault?”
Most of the actors I know dead set against this contract have credits as long as my arm (including me) and we all see the danger it represents to ALL of our abilities to make the living we’ve made.I ALSO have produced. One indie I also wrote and directed, and have been on the other end of it. And, MY experience, talking to producers across the board, is, they are CLUELESS in their assumptions of what actors DO, let alone how they live and what they make. The ignorance is STAGGERING, which is a HUGE part of the problem.
As to “anonymous” listen Anne-Marie, MF is in the position it’s in because of MF’s actions. Period. Assumptions were made about support that didn’t exist, delays in acting were interminable, and you screwed the pooch. Deal with it and move on. Stop blaming others for your lack of results. You yourself said you thought MF weren’t such great leaders, and you were right. In fact they’ve been awful.
The things that needed to be done to deal with the crazies were not done when you could have done them – you allowed your political opposition to form and gather and strengthen, all the while doing NOTHING to get them out of the way. You HAD political capital, and part of that is USING it – not squandering it hoping the membership won’t listen to the whack-jobs telling them you’re being unrealistic and hard-line and that you’re blowing it. Sooner or later, those members MF thought they had in the bag went over to the other side, and you have no one to blame for losing them but yourselves. Period.
Now? If this contract goes out? My guess is it very well might pass. And that is disastrous. It will be nearly impossible to recover once this pig is signed.
That is why, in the absence of TANGIBLE progress with a claim to the NLRB or in the courts RIGHT NOW, I believe we need RADICAL action to get the story out there on a NATIONAL level (which MF has NEVER done) that the little guy is getting screwed by corporate overlords raking in box office BILLIONS – AIDED AND ABETTED by “stars” who have put their gravy trains and their relationships with the corporate, studio, network and agenting playa’s over their roots as struggling middle-class actors who, through talent and LUCK broke through the pack and are set for life.
With their support, SAG would have had a fair contract 6 months ago. NO DOUBT.
So, I say – go tell the story in front of Tom Hank’s gate in Malibu – BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.
Can anyone who is a WGA, DGA, AFTRA or IATSE member tell me if you really believe your union will hold firm in 2011? I’m having a hard time believing all this excitement about all of our contracts expiring on June 30th, 2011 and this “perfect storm” scenario. John McGuire, David White, Ned Vaughn/UFS and Sam Freed/NY Board gave up force majeure, jurisdiction, residuals in new media, residuals for pre-1974 television and pre-1971 features streamed in new media, retroactivity and a host of other issues for a contract that expires in 2011. On the premise that no other union will go in early, negotiate, ultimately making a deal that will set the template for any union that follows.
For those merger hounds, there is no way SAG/AFTRA will be merged by Oct 2010 (that’s part of the AMPTP’s proposal; they’re demanding that SAG begin negotiations no later than Oct 1, 2010 and conclude no later than Nov. 2010). As it is now, due to the lack of retroactivity, if this contract is approved, SAG will be out of synch and behind AFTRA in all areas of minimums. AFTRA’s minimums are higher than SAG’s and will be if this contract is ratified. So, does anyone believe that in 2011, SAG will be able to negotiate our minimums up to the level of AFTRA’s or that AFTRA will agree to lower its minimums to help SAG?
So, honestly, was the trade off worth it? Was securing the 2011 date really all that important when we all know that no union is obligated to wait for another union to negotiate. Any union can go in early to negotiate for their members. Does anyone really believe that IATSE, which is a international union, will hold firm and negotiate with SAG? Does anyone really believe that the WGA will be willing to go on strike once again? They didn’t wait for SAG last year (when they really should and could have) Does anyone really believe that the DGA won’t go in before Oct 2010 and negotiate their contract? Does anyone believe that SAG and AFTRA will be merged by June 2011? And if we aren’t, does anyone really believe that AFTRA will stand down, foregoing raises in their minimums and potentially losing millions for their members so that SAG can try to negotiate minimums to match AFTRA’s?
David White stated that he believes SAG will be THE UNION to set the template in 2011. How is that possible?
This is what the written assent got us. This is what UFS delivered to the membership. In their 2008 campaign literature they stated that “they wanted what MF wanted and more.” They stated that reasonable, respectful people would be able to negotiate a strong contract for SAG and not a bully like Doug Allen. They promised that a polite, talented negotiator like John McGuire would be successful in delivering a contract SAG members could endorse. Well, maybe he has. We’ll know by late next month. I won’t be voting yes.
Will SAG enlist Sally Field, Tom Hanks, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Meryl Streep, Robert DiNero, Rob Lowe, Rhea Pearlman/DiVito et al to go public, endorsing this piece of crap? Are they going to take out trade ads congratulating UFS and others, demanding that the membership “Just take the deal”?
UNLESS all talent unions sign a contract ensuring that we all stand together and really shut this town down with the holiest of holy strikes in 2011, I say:
Vote NO. Show some strength. Let’s finally place some pressure on the CEO’s/companies responsible for major motion picture slates. Let’s cause some real dissent within the AMPTP. Let’s do something other than bending over and taking it up the…
matt mulhern:
i’m not anne-marie, and you’re really starting to sound like a jerk.
Nikki, et al~
Read the contract here:
http://www.sagwatchdog.com
and see if you agree with this piece of shit contract. I “like” the reuse fees for New Media of $20. Yup, that’s gonna keep food on the table for sure … especially since producers want to put all material on the internet now, whether the user pays for it’s download or not, that ain’t much money. It’s no wonder Tom Hanks is behind it all. As a producer, he stands to save quite a bundle – especially since no real money will be going into the Producer’s Pension and Health Fund.
Thanks AFTRA! Thanks Mr. White! Thanks Tom Hanks! Thanks for ruining the futures on many for your own gain. Way to make us all proud. Better be careful where you walk down the street. You’ve pissed off a lot of performers and you’ll need a 24 hour body guard now, I am sure.
I LOVE THE IDEA OF STANDING IN FRONT OF TOM HANKS’ GATE!
HOW ABOUT MERYL’S LOFT IN NEW YORK?!
WE STOOD OUTSIDE THE STUDIOS. WHY NOT BRING THE BATTLE TO THOSE WHO ARGUABLY DID US THE MOST HARM. THOSE THAT ABANDONED US. THOSE THAT HAD THE CLOUT TO MAKE THE POWERS THAT BE, LISTEN.
Love’s labors lost,
Love of storytelling can put the kids to sleep but can’t put food in their mouths? I wonder what you would have said if the commercials contract was this contentious. Would you discount residuals so easily there?
As much as you try to sound fair and reasonable, you’re a bit elitist and at the worst, an ignorant narcissist. If you’ve had a nice run, don’t worry, it will end. And when you can barely make a living in new media, you’ll likely have a different opinion and wish you fought for it back then.
Please take the reins of your “horse” and find your humility.
Here’s Mr. Hanks’ Myspace page:
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=190658759
If he wants to make decisions that impact the union, then he better be willing to answer some questions and defend his actions. If not, then he should humble himself and recognize his voice is no more important than any other actor’s and that he should perhaps accept that there are concerns beyond his own.
And I believe we have a union leader that we ELECTED.
His name is George Clooney.
Onasinkingship
Thanks – it IS a cool idea, no? Bring the fight to those who betrayed the rank and file. Get them on camera to explain just what the hell they were thinking.
“anonymous.”
Yeah, so, I’ve been told. Interesting you come just under… well, never mind.
If you’re not – who ARE you? – show some guts and expose yourself – stand behind your words. And, while you’re at it – tell me ONE thing I said that is untrue. I’m all ears.
@you and the horse you rode in on
To be honest, you’re right. It is kind of elitist. And obnoxious. But that wasn’t my intention so I can only apologize. Am just trying to find a way into these questions that doesn’t come across as simply partisan. No easy task, apparently.
And I will say this for Matt Mulhern, God love him for saying what he feels and signing his posts (which he just pointed out to “Anonymous”). Long may he wave.
“Vote NO. Show some strength. Let’s finally place some pressure on the CEO’s/companies responsible for major motion picture slates. Let’s cause some real dissent within the AMPTP. Let’s do something other than bending over and taking it up the…
Comment by union advocate”
Agreed fully that the “perfect storm” scenario based on current trajectories is about as likely as Kevin Costner ever not gagging on an attempted accent.
I too plan on voting on the contract currently before us, and not defer thought like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand blissfully indulging fantasies of “perfect storms” two years from now after he gives carnivores two years to munch on his exposed flank.
———-
Guys and gals, I warned about this like a broken record, and didn’t get a single response even on DHD. Not to presume, however, that anything was going to be done by parties in power had the warnings been heeded.
Word on the street is that we’re going to get *f’d* by background on this one, to the extent that some BG in arrears to SAG are even rushing to cough up the dues to be current for the right to vote.
I’m not sure that it was preventable, but it was certainly foreseeable and shouldn’t have been ignored. I’m at pretty much a loss to think for the interests of those who do only BG, why they *shouldn’t* go ahead and f us with a huge block “yes” vote. Oh well. This is what we get by pretty much ignoring the concerns of arguably our biggest voting block, and pretty much not fighting on a single front that BG considers important to them.
But then again, given the NY/UFS stance of rolling over and playing dead on *all* issues other than contract expiration date, perhaps this critical “oversight” won’t matter one whit.
But if you know more than one or two solely-BG-players who will draw the line in the sand right here, and right now, you know a diff set of people than do I.
I hope to god that we don’t get slammed by people so worn out by fighting that they won’t read the current POS offer, let alone have the “fight” in them to keep going and recognize the lipstickless dirty pig for what can be easily demonstrated by reading it.
I refuse to bend over and take this shitty deal up the ass…NO!
Sterling Wolfe:
Interesting that that you “warned about this like a broken record, and didn’t get a single response…”.
Try making a point, it can have an impact…
”
matt mulhern:
i’m not anne-marie, and you’re really starting to sound like a jerk.
Comment by Anonymous — April 22, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
”
Then who are YOU???
Matt, a few others who comment here, and I are perfectly willing to put our names where our opinions are, and stand behind them. My signature on my comments goes straight to my blog where I have links to other parts of my online presence. Where’s your testicular (ovarian?) fortitude???
Union Advocate -
In fairness to the WGA, it was SAG that moved itself out of alignment with them when former President Melissa Gilbert signed a one-year contract extension.