I wanted to wait until I’d received at least half a dozen reports to post about what happened at Thursday night’s SAG Informational meeting held at the Hollywood Reneaissance Hotel about the tentative Theatrical/TV Contract with the AMPTP now mailed to the members in good standing at the big actors union. (Hard to take seriously Variety‘s account, especially when the trade IDed SAG Interim Executive Director as “David Young”. Wrong union. Dave Young is executive director of the writers guild while David White is IED of the actors guild. In addition, the Variety story was time-stamped at 7:41PM but the meeting didn’t finish until 10:01Pm.)
It was not a friendly room towards white or Ned Vaughn of Unite For Strength, part of the so-called SAG National Majority now leading SAG. Both were booed. While SAG President Alan Rosenberg and Ed Asner received standing ovations. There were over 600 people based on staff’s count, described to me as a broad mix of “working, kind of working, rarely working, and never working” actors. Everyone I spoke with agreed that the members opposed to the contract outnumbered those who favored the contract by as much as 75% “Vote No” to 20% “Vote Yes” with 5% undecided.
Anne-Marie Johnson convened the Hollywood Division meeting and joining her on the dais where White, Vaughn, SAG Chief Negotiator John McGuire from NY, Stacy Travis, Connie Stevens, and Ray Rodriguez. A slide show covering the contract’s major points was shown. Then it was Q-and-A time with questions from the floor alternated with questions submitted on cards.
Several attendees told me Ned Vaughn made many misstatements, while Stacy Travis appeared overwhelmed by the task of answering queries. White is known for his calm manner but, when the crowd was not pleased with many of his answers, he began to get hot under the collar. Even more so when Rosenberg, Stevens and Johnson repeatedly voiced their opposition to the contract due to very fundamental issues such as the high budget threshold for made-for-New Media productions enabling rampant non-union productions, as well as the virtually non-existent residuals structure for network primetime content streamed on the Internet. “You can make a hell of a TV series for $300,000,” Stevens said.
Vocal “Vote No” advocate Scott Wilson said from the floor that “it is stunning” that SAG was creating a space for non-union work funded by studios.
One “Vote Yes” supporter claimed more pilots were going to AFTRA than SAG. So White was asked specificxally how passing the contract would bring TV producers back from AFTRA. He had no clear answer. A “Vote No” backer said what mattered was the pilots’ success ratio. Said another, “The union we do pilots under is relevant because of thresholds towards penions and health. We’re dishonoring prior generations who fought for residuals and P&H.”
Regarding the latter, Ned Vaughn was asked if he thought SAG was throwing under the bus those older members who’d worked prior to 1971 when it came to residuals. Vaughn stated that their work was so old that they’d gotten paid already years ago. “It’s such a small amount of money anyway…” he added. The crowd didn’t like that reply at all.
Vaughn later told Variety that the “Vote Yes” contingent asked Rosenberg repeatedly to explain how voting the deal down will lead to a better agreement when the AMPTP has said repeatedly it won’t sweeten the terms. “I think a lot of members don’t believe that voting no is going to get us a better deal,” Vaughn told the trade.
Some questions from the “Vote No” contingent caught White in inconsistencies. For instance, on the issue of force majeure, White has continually insisted in the past that an issue like that in this contract will never be negotiated again with the AMPTP, not even in 2011. And, because this is all the guild could get on the issue, this contract should be ratified. (“We will never be able to get anything back in force majeure, that’s for sure,” White has said.)
But when during last night’s questioning, White’s answer suddenly was not as definitive. “He sugar-coated his answer to make it appear as if SAG could go in and renegotiate things,” one “vote No” attendee told me. “He claimed the Sunset clauses allowed for that. Well, you could hear a collective moan from the crowd.”
White also tried to get out from under his quote “This deal sucks”, which I reported he said during a National Board meeting and which the “Vote No” contingent is now using in its campaign to reject the contract. White stated Thursday night that he should have used another word — not because he felt “suck” was an inappropriate word for an Interim NED to use during a board meeting, but because he was misunderstood and wanted to make it clear that there are good things about the contract. “Moans again,” a source told me.
Towards the end of the evening, Ed Asner spoke and received a standing ovation for expressing deep concerns about the contract. Frances Fisher expressed concern about clip use going forward because of the contract.
In all it was a 3-hour meeting with cheers and boos and a few calls of “bullshit” (but Johnson had that person removed from the room). No fights broke out although there were disagreements. Even though questions had been limited to 2 minutes each, there was still a long line of people waiting to speak by the time the meeting was ended.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.







Kevin –
Some basic logic is in order. While David White said what you said he said, the fact remains he referred to portions of the deal as “crap”. This is the same deal he’s supporting. Therefore, even though he offered further explanation, the fact remains he’s asking us to vote for at least some contract provisions he has characterized as “crap”.
I agree with you about the opponent to this agreement who disparaged Ned Vaughn’s resume. That was a personal jab, and there’s no room for that in a UNION. We need to be all about building solidarity. Love our fellow actors, respect their work (I’m still in awe of Jamie Cromwell’s turn in LA Confidential), and disagree respectfully where necessary.
Ace -
It was Dave Clennon. I twittered the quote.
BlueMel -
Interestingly enough, David White was asked specifically about drawing pilots back to SAG if the contract is approved, and he had no plan. Seriously. No plan. In his answer, he meandered off in other directions while doing a rather good job of sounding lawyerly about it.
I took debate in high school and got my BA in Poli Sci. I also worked in public relations while in the United States military. I usually know less than a sentence in when a well-educated man is trying to bullshit me, and BS what all DW had to offer on the issue of SAG getting those pilots back. And in fairness to DW, he can’t exactly say he wants to cut special deals to slit AFTRA’s throat (even if some think that’s exactly what AFTRA’s been doing to SAG). That’s a ridiculous race to the bottom that only benefits the moguls.
What we do, BTW, if SAG turns down this offer – and I hope we do – is send David White back to the table with clear marching orders to do better. Much better. On new media – full jurisdiction, regardless of budget. Residuals – new media to old media parity. Force majeure – 100%, period (the moguls agreed to it in the last contract; they shouldn’t get to wiggle out of it now). Clip consent. Forced endorsement. Frakking mileage rates, for F’s sake. You get the idea.
David White’s wife is WGA. It is possible that David in his heart of hearts is on our side. We just need to make sure he understands we’re not going to eat a crap sandwich. And he needs the ammo going back to the table of the will of the guild’s membership, clearly expressed at the ballot box. And we do that right now by voting NO.
—
One other general note. SAG should reconsider the 75% super-super-supermajority needed for an SAV. The idea that a slim one-quarter of the members who vote on an SAV can scuttle it is absolutely ridiculous. Sixty percent would be far more reasonable. IMHO.
I was at this meeting as well and am voting YES!
Here is why.
1. SAG has been way behind the eight ball on Every change in our industry, Cable TV, Pay Per View, Commercials on Cable, DVD and now the Internet.
2. TODAY millions of TV shows old and new (see below), feature length & short films are ALREADY being transferred, downloaded, recorded and burned on personal computers ALL OVER THE WORLD. Every other actor that was at that meeting has previously Recorded a TV show or Film on his or her Cable DVR’s or Dish systems. They can watch it Over and Over again RIGHT NOW and are paying NOTHING each time to ANY of the creative people who made it. Simply for the price of their Cable or Dish Subscription. No Government, Studio or Guild is monitoring these multiple viewings or piracy, if you feel that is what it is. NO ONE.
3. IF SAG and it’s members along with Producers create content for the internet OR pull content from another source for the Internet this contract acknowledges jurisdiction and creates a Partner in collecting or creating ANY revenues now or in the future and also Protects those creators from the piracy I described above, if you feel that is what it is. I do, but I also understand that a CHANGE HAS ALREADY COME. You now have a Guild and I will readily admit (due to No Governmental Regulations) a Multi Billion dollar media conglomerate behind you who will not allow losing any monies. Right now, TODAY you have NO RECOURSE for what has ALREADY occurred. This is not fear mongering, simply Google and search for ANY Content and you will be able to find it, right now, much like I was able to find this fact:
Most downloaded TV-shows on BitTorrent, 2008-NOT 2009!
Rank Show Downloads Est. US TV viewers
1 Lost 5,730,000 13,400,000
2 Heroes 4,400,000 8,200,000
3 Prison Break 3,840,000 6,100,000
4 Terminator Sarah Chronicles 2,240,000 5,500,000
5 Desperate Housewives 1,990,000 16,200,000
6 Stargate Atlantis 1,810,000 1,700,000
7 Dexter 1,660,000 7,200,000
8 House 1,520,000 15,700,000
9 Grey’s Anatomy 1,380,000 16,000,000
10 Smallville 1,150,000 4,100,000
THIS SHIP HAS ALREADY SAILED and WE HAVE NO CONTRACT IN PLACE!
4. NO UNITY WITHIN SAG (as reported by Nikki and with my own eyes and ears) nor our sister Union (AFTRA) or the other Unions in town that will NOT SUPPORT US, a Strike or Work Stoppage, which has already moved work elsewhere (see below). I liken our current situation to many Alligators (SAG actors) in a very shallow pond (CA) with little fish (Jobs) when these two situations occur, THE ALLIGATORS BEGIN TO FEED ON THEMSELVES. This what I SAW AND EXPERIENCED. Passion I respect and admire, just directed at the wrong enemy. No picket signs in front of the SAG building about the AMPTP not negotiating in good faith or a fair contract for all, but rather personally bashing Tom Hanks, Sally Field fellow SAG members in FRONT their own union building. WOW. “AMPTP is Laughing their Asses off” as one Reasonable and Non Extremist SAG actor, said on one of the mics, which was NOT reported, by the way.
5. NO LEVERAGE, POOR LEADERSHIP OR PLANNING & NO EXIT STRATEGY. Leverage as I see it (others are welcome to disagree…& I’m sure you will) is the principle of using a small advantage (or in negotiating terms, even merely a perceived advantage) to gain a much larger benefit. From what position given what I have laid out above do we have leverage here?
Examples of Poor Leadership 101:
Incompetent
“The Leader and at least some followers lack the will or skill (or both) to sustain effective action” -Does the name Doug Allen come to mind? An incompetent leader may, for example, not be comfortable with technology or may not have the foresight to see challenges on the horizon.
Rigid
“The leader and at least some followers are stiff and unyielding”
Rigid leaders, unlike incompetent leaders, are capable of doing all that is necessary for the team to succeed. Like trying to sue the SAG National Board. In the case of a rigid leader, the problem lies in the fact that the leader is unwilling to do the things required in order for the team to succeed.
Intemperate
“The leader lacks self-control and is aided and abetted by followers who are unwilling or unable to effectively intervene”. Even the most talented leader can lead a team to foreseeable disaster due to a lack of control. Which I have seen in front of the SAG building.
Callous
“The leader and at least some followers are uncaring or unkind”. A callous leader will destroy any good will that exists amongst team members leading to a fundamental breakdown of trust. The question is who do you we trust these days?
Corrupt
“The leader and at least some followers lie, cheat or steal”. The worst-case scenario is that other team members will want to resort to similar behavior as the leader. I have NO such example here; these are only talking points on Poor Leadership qualities.
Insular
“The leader and at least some followers minimize or disregard the health and welfare of people outside of the team”. This can result in the team becoming the needless enemy of people who could otherwise make valuable contributions to the work of the team. This meeting was chalk full insular behavior right down to Ed Asner’s comparison of our current situation to the Jews in Germany, being a Jew I guess he is allowed. Some Heard or Felt that it was an anti semitic remark, but was really Insular. Earlier that day Asner was on Tavis Smiley and said: “Well, I think I’m always feeding my ego. That’s certainly a big part of it. I like controversy and I’m a cynic or a skeptic. I’m not sure where I fall.”
“Oh Lou!!”
Wikipedia defines Strategy as: a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal. Strategy is different from tactics. Tactics is concerned with the CONDUCT of an engagement while strategy is concerned with how different engagements are linked. In other words, how a battle is fought is a matter of tactics: whether it SHOULD be fought at all is a matter of strategy.
So you Vote NO. Then what? Strike @ a cost of 1 million + and Every other union and industry service in town will simply Understand that we have to draw a line in the sand here? CA as a State is 24 BILLION in the hole TODAY!
One example on the LACK of Leverage we think we have or will have on SAG Feature Films if we Vote No on this current contract.
The state of Louisiana (a “Right to Work” state by the way) film commission office reports that in 2008 alone more than $32 million in incentives were granted. This brings the totals to more than $443 million dating back to the programs origin in 2002. The total impact from film productions in Louisiana in that time is estimated to be in excess of $2 billion, including over $200 million in payroll alone. Where has and will all the FISH go? Where they will make more Profit! Don’t hate the Player, hate the Game! Capitalist world we live in. Michigan upped their tax credits to up to 45%, 20 films are moving to that state in 2009. Remember Canada in the 90′s. Be thankful it’s at least in OUR COUNTRY!
I am SORRY, I really am. These are REAL FACTS. I am not part of ANY faction.
Believe it or not, my family has been in Unions for 3 generations. Got my SAG card 20 years ago. I’m a Middle Class Actor-40K-60K…one year 100K-in 2008 I JUST made Plan 1 insurance and I AM STILL VOTING YES! I have 2 young children, in public school Thank God! I have a house that is upside down and I AM STILL VOTING YES!
I have seen what this Union has and is doing TO ITSELF.
SAG IS NOT ADJUSTING TO THIS NEW MEDIA SEA CHANGE. IF IT DOES NOT…IT WILL DROWN ALONG WITH ITS MEMBERS.
Now it’s My Turn for Fear Mongering. I have gotten plenty of e-mails on BOTH sides and listened for all 3 hours of this meeting and others in formally.
That is my OPINION. Am I ‘The Silent Majority’ in Voting YES?
We will see on June 10th!
This proposed deal is the cliff that SAG (U4S, et al) is leading the charge over. Sadly, I think it will pass by the uninformed masses who unfortunately will not allow their apathy to keep them from casting a vote.
I VOTED “NO” on the contract and VOTED “NO” on the commercial contract too!! I’ve been one of the TOP Commercial Actors in Los Angeles for the past 15 years and have watched my residuals diminish to a point of no return. When you book a National Commercial – it’s a JOKE!! MAJOR Advertisers are spending 85% of the budgets on Internet Ad’s, which our A-SPOTS are non-existent. Cable spot are a JOKE too!! Back to Internet usage. Our proposed new Contract gives us $2,000 for an ENTIRE YEAR!! WTF!!! That usage payment should be for a 13 week cycle and NOT 1-YEAR!!! Who is kidding who?!?!?! NEXT STOP – BACKGROUND performers will get residuals… HUH?!?!?!?! This my friend spells DOOM for Principal performers and DOOM for Background too… WHY?!?! Well.. First for Background… When EXTRAS are on the set and suddenly the director ask them to be in the foreground -ergo UPGRADE to principal status… GUESS what people… ??? This contract will X-OUT that UPGRADE… And for Principals – well people we are FUCKED!! That means more EXTRAS will be billed as performers and say good-bye to your residuals. Here is a small tid-bit of info: 1994 I booked 10 commercials and made over $300,000 for the year… 2004 I booked 10 commercials and made $83,000… 2008 10 commercials and made $46,512.51… Whats wrong with that picture?!?!?!?!!?! If we vote yes on either contract, then we are voting our careers away. No more middle of the road actors in TV/Film or No more professional Commercial actors… We won’t be able to afford to work just as a professional performer. What does that mean: No more late audition rush calls.. It wouldn’t be worth my while to act… Why?!?!?! Its a profession!!! And if you keep booking the same and keep getting less and less… Whats the point?!?! I already gave back my AFTRA card – FUCK THEM!! Now it looks like I will be doing the same with SAG… If either one of these pass, then our careers will end… NON-UNION work will flourish and all you will see on TV Commercials are HACKS – and – all your will see via TV/FILM per character actors will be HACKS!! The content will die and so will our careers…
@ The Silent Majority?-
My observation after reading all of the posts and then yours, is that the “vote no” people want to discuss the contract we’re voting on but for the most part you avoid any discussion of the contract. I find that key because we are in fact voting on the contract, not the valid and not so valid points you would have me focusing on… If the contract is good vote yes. If the contract is bad vote no! The way you go about it, one could relativise ones self into voting George Bush in for a third term! LOL!
Michael H,
Respectfully, while your statement about David White’s admissions is partly correct, you’re missing the point he was making. If you ignore his context, then, sure, he was saying you’re voting for “crap” if you approve this contract. But what he added right afterwards was that every contract has “crap” in it. He said that this was true not just of this contract, but of the one before it, the one before that, and so on. His point was that you’re not going to get a contract that DOESN’T have crap in it. The question is whether you can live with the contract or not. If you’re waiting for a utopean contract that has everything you want before approving it, I would argue that your own life experience should show you that this is not a fruitful approach.
I also must disagree that a no vote will somehow motivate the AMPTP back to the table with a miraculously better offer. If the offer is rejected, then it’s off the table and SAG works with no contract for the next two years. In the meantime, AFTRA takes more of television, and feature films continue to trickle along in the country while most are made abroad. And in the event of a strike somehow being called, AFTRA would continue to work (as would the 40,000 dual cardholders) under the terms of the no-strike clause, and movies would continue to be made abroad.
As for the idea of lowering the threshold for the strike authorization, I’m surprised at that idea. The whole point of such a vote is to show that the guild is unified. A strike authorization, to be truly effective, should have over 90% of the vote, as it shows that 9 out of 10 members are ready to walk out if the situation doesn’t improve. (And that’s what the WGA got when they held their vote in October 2007) Calling a strike when only 60% supports it is a recipe for a repeat of what John McGuire described happening to SAG in 1980 after about 13 weeks, or what everyone saw happen to the WGA in 1985 after much less than that.
We all can’t express enough our appreciation to DHD for giving us an independent, accurate and unbiased account of what really happened at the meeting. Thankfully we have DHD as an alternative to AMPTP house organs SagWatch and Handel.
@ Todd: “But let’s say all y’all get your strike. How long do you think that strike will have to last before we have the contract that suits you? 3 months? 6?”
How about one hour?
Okay, I’m being facetious but here’s my reasoning. When the AMPTP first sat down with SAG, they threw everything at the wall to see what would stick. Rollbacks galore. Ridiculous residual compensation. Non-union workspace for New Media. Etc. Etc. Etc. And SAG responded weakly (in general) overall. If you look at it from the AMPTP’s point of view, they stand to profit GREATLY from this contract. But if they were to agree on SAG’s contract offer from, say, ten months ago they still come out WAY ahead. They still win big, but just not HUGE (as this contract allows). So they don’t have to hold the line to the point of strike.
What it boils down to is brinkmanship – bluffing. Poker faces. The truth is they don’t want a strike either because they don’t have to afford it. They still win big by offering us a fair (to us) contract.
Sorry Silent Majority — you and your kind will lose. And, if that is not the case, and the deal passes, you can be sure the attorney general will be looking into this election. That is also part of the plan. VOTE NO!
You make no points at all on why we should vote yes.
What are the reasons an actor should vote yes? I haven’t heard your reasons. VOTE NO!
If its to get back to work, actors are working, under AFTRA for TV, with SAG saying even if a yes vote goes thru, it has not plan to get those jobs back
A potential SAG strike will disable theatrical film production and that is our leverage. VOTE NO!!
Our current SAG leaders cannot assure us, even if we vote yes, that 1) a merger with AFTRA will occur. VOTE NO!
And you say vote yes? VOTE NO!!
Also, I noted on the one hand you criticize fellow SAG members for bashing other SAG members while you do the same thing about previous negotiators/leaders (also SAG members!)
Instead, your energy could have been better put to use detailing why you say we should vote yes. Just the facts Jack! VOTE NO!!
What I want REALLY to know is HOW MUCH under the table BLOOD MONEY are certain people (no names here) being handed to try and force a YES vote down actors throats???
I believe these studios aren’t beneath making “some kind of deal with certain people (again, no names) to make it worth their while” to ensure a yes vote is in the bag!
Can you spell c-o-r-r-u-p-t-i-o-n?
Can you say attorney general investigation perhaps?
thinking logically writes:
“Will it happen tomorrow? Most likely not. But why would the Studios be sticking to these internet rates so strongly if there wasn’t profit to be made?”
it absolutely is happening right now. a section of the specs of the HP Pavilion Elite d5200t ATX series desktop computer reads as follows:
>>Excellent TV
Record shows plus pause and rewind live TV with the optional PCI TV tuner card with personal video recorder. You can also:
* Watch/record two shows at once when you upgrade to the dual tuner (all tuner options feature Clear QAM, which lets you view high definition non-premium cable programs)
* Add a remote control and direct the show from up to 10 feet away<<
Guys, I’m really sorry the contract is horrid. I wish you all the best of luck, and cannot wait until you have voted, if only so that another step has actually been taken in this painfully drawn out process.
I am an editor, and have been virtually without work for a few weeks shy of a year now. I do not get residuals. I have a baby due any day. Another talented editor friend of mine is leaving Los Angeles at the end of the month. I may be forced to, as well, if a job comes up somewhere else (I’m applying all over the country, in preparation for a further elongated work fallout here.) Debt is my middle name, now.
Several companies I worked for are pretty much shut down, and have laid off the majority of their post production staff. I applied for an INSANELY low-paying job that should pay as much per day as it does per week (not enough to survive on), and they said *hundreds* of other over-qualified editors applied, as well.
This town is dying, and while I know it’s ultimately not SAG’s fault, I just wish all this negotiating was over. Talent is leaving in every facet of production, pre through post. Just look at how many “for rent” signs there are. More and more every day.
All I can say is, this could kill Hollywood if it goes on much longer. I too hate the unethical business tactics. But please, just vote already.
DAVID WHITE WANTS YOU TO VOTE NO ON THIS CONTRACT.
Any decent actor can read into the subtext. David White thinks this contract is “crap,” that he said out loud. He also said he withdrew his comment that the contract “sucks” because that was not language an Interim Director should use. HE NEVER SAID HE DOESN’T THINK IT SUCKS! That was also said right out loud.
It’s a hostage situation. His hands are tied because he is paid a lot by SAG and MUST follow the directive of the Board majority no matter how underhanded that majority is.
In addition to what he says out loud–and now we’re getting to the subtext– if you were in that room and watching and listening you know he wouldn’t recommend this contract to the membership and to the best of his ability he did not recommend it.
VOTE NO.
BlueMel-
Why do so many people out there take a strike authorization vote as a “desire” to strike? That’s not logical at all. And is completely unfair.
The LAST thing anyone wants is a strike. It’s a last ditch effort of threat for bargaining power.
I am tired of hearing everyone blame the actors for the economic woes the industry and the country is in. The writers did it and everyone was behind them. Unfortunately the actors are last in line so they have to take the heat for everyone else? That’s entirely unfair.
And pushing it off until 2011 as most “Yes” voters state has been addressed in my post. Once you give them an inch, they cement themselves there and stay there forever. You never answered that part of the posting.
When have the Studios EVER made good on a promise to make-up for low rates offered at first to “test” new media options?
Never.
Who knows. It may not work. But laying down and rolling over just so we can push it off until 2011 when the same will happen again seems ludicrous. I don’t have an easy answer for how it’s going to work or what’s going to happen. But by making them realize that there’s the POTENTIAL for a work stoppage gives SAG a bigger threat at the table.
The studios have shareholders to answer to. If profits decrease that much there’ll be anger from them.
A “No” vote is NOT a “Let’s All Strike!” vote. Not at all. NONE of us want that.
But with history being the great teacher it is, you can’t fault people for being leery. Especially not when the residuals structure, Pension & Health earnings and contributions are so clearly, dramatically affected.
They have NEVER made right on those previous promises.
They (The Studios/Networks) have already announced their desire to Kill Residuals. What more do we need?
We can argue all day but one thing’s clear…Your answer (no offense intended) seems to be coming from a place of emotion rather than calculated thought. Weighing all the pros and cons of the situation while thinking about the future seems like it would lead you (third person general) to a “No” vote for bargaining power.
It may not work. Who knows? But why give up your final chance just because you’re tired of the drama?
It’s called a “Union.” A thing created to make sure that workers weren’t taken advantage of or cheated by owners.
It’s just good strategy.
Kevin -
Just a few minutes after expressing his regret – in late May! – for saying the offer “sucked” back in February, David White has another word he probably wishes he could take back. My opinion of David White at this point is he’s a man who can’t help but let the truth slip out even while he’s trying desperately to peddle what his bosses are trying to sell. The deal sucks and there’s crap in it. That’s David White’s opinion. Deal with it.
As for your argument that the moguls will sit it out for two years and more TV will go AFTRA, well, the hard truth a lot of SAG members may not want to face is that that ship’s sailed. Passing this contract will not put the toothpaste back in the tube (I can do silly metaphors all day). More SAG pilots will be shot when the talent the networks must have demand the producers sign with the big actors’ union.
Your analysis of the state of film production is faulty. First off, SAG’s Global Rule 1 dictates SAG jurisdiction if the company is a signatory OR if you use even one measly SAG actor. Period. Yes, the moguls did slow things down a bit for a minute, but when faced with the hard reality of huge looming holes in their release schedules two or three years down the line, they took their big projects into production anyway. IOW, there’s not a huge pile of backed-up work just waiting for us to approve this crap sandwich of a contract offer.
You can opine that the moguls will sit on their hands for two years, without anything of substance to back it up. I can opine that if we reject this offer, some actors who are sitting on the fence may come around and we’ll get the 75% we need for an SAV. On the moguls’ side of the fence, their corporate overlords on Wall Street and in Tokyo need their media profits on the corporate balance sheet because everything else is tanking hard (you see Sony’s most recent revenue reports???). They rely heavily on their media arms. If we can mount a legitimate threat to those revenue streams through a credible threat to withhold our services, they may well come around before the first day of a work stoppage.
Am I sure of this? No, but then you can’t say it won’t work, because WE HAVEN’T TRIED IT YET. We do know from recent history that sometimes, just the threat of a strike is enough to bring the other side around. We tried being reasonable, and got a deal almost nobody (by your admission) likes. I say we can change up this sandwich. A lot more bread, a lot less crap, IF we stand up for our rights.
Step one: vote NO on the crap sandwich.
Ace,
Multinationals don’t blink. They move very slowly. They wait to see how long they can stand it and how long we can stand it. We’re looking at October at the earliest.
You’re brushing aside the realities and reveling in a fantasy of SAG’s clout, that at this point everyone knows does not exist.
Mheister,
I would argue that the ship has sailed on a strike as well. I’ll also argue that striking over what is currently a practically non-existent revenue stream is not worth the money lost either.
And for your info, plenty of strikes have been tried, and the most successful were because money streams were already in place. The WGA went out on strike over New Media — and it can be argued that their strike was our strike — and what they got is what we’re being offered. A foothold.
It’s time to move on. I’m tired of the disinformation based on assumptions. And David White is a much more nuanced person than you give him credit for. I can tell you that he wants us to sign this contract, move on, and get on with figuring out how to get an upper hand on the studios. Running around with placards claiming they have to give us a fair deal isn’t it. Attacking another union isn’t it. Attacking fellow actors isn’t it. Grasping onto a phrase taken out of context isn’t it. Questioning other actors credit or commitment or desire to serve isn’t it.
What is it, is allowing for vigorous debate, agreeing to disagree, not making it personal, and really spending the time to come to grips with what terms and issues really MEAN. And that will different for different people.
MF has mastered garnering their base, shutting down debate in the boardroom, spouting out an opinion as a fact, personally attacking anyone that disagrees with them — calling their integrity into question(we saw this in spades last night, from Ed Asner, to actors deriding both New Vaughn and Stacey Travis — to what end?).
I can’t afford to vote no, and I won’t. I’ll vote yes because its a very good contract in traditional media — which is where I make my living currently, and I’ve already been hit several times by working without a contract — gives me some sort of residuals, indeed more than DVD — for the first time for episodes being downloaded off of iTunes and the like(where most kids I know are getting their stuff. They hate HULU. WhY? Because they have to watch a commercial), and because I know that it will increase my bottom line income. And I am confident that we’ll be in a much better place in 2 years when we trash the current New Media provisions, partner with our sister union(if we’re not merged yet) and substantially improve this deal. You can call my assumption that we can do that, based on contractual language, into question, and start screaming about cable and DVD, but the HARD FACT of the matter is that there was no sunset clause for either of those mediums. A yes vote is a proactive vote. Maybe the nonworking can afford to work under the old contract or afford a strike. I can not.
From Kent McCord, forwarded to me by the Actors’ Rights Coalition:
The core principles adopted by the National Board in a unanimous vote
of 68 to 0 was a vote by members from the New York Division the
Regional Branch Division and the Hollywood Division.
It states:
*It is a core principle of Screen Actors Guild
That no non-union work shall be authorized to be done under any
SAG agreement and;
That all work done under a Screen Actors Guild contract, regardless
of budget level, shall receive fair compensation when reused.*
This motion was drafted and presented by New York. It was debated
and adopted by the National Board.
This proposed TV/Theatrical contract violates that *core principle.*
Michael (and pb),
I’m sorry, but David White was very clear about what he said to you, and to the others who asked him similar questions. He was clear that he supports a yes vote on this contract, and he carefully explained that if you looked at any contract after negotiation there would be things you wouldn’t want in there. But he stressed that there isn’t a perfect contract, so he recommended a yes vote without hesitation. There wasn’t any subtext of him not wanting to recommend it. If anything, he was a bit sheepish about having inadvertently given the opposition a talking point with his quote.
As for the rest of the analysis of where the industry is right now, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. A no vote on this contract means that SAG works without a contract until the next go-round of negotiations, which will be 2011. Even if SAG could somehow get the 75% to pass a SAV, the response by the AMPTP would be to sit back and dare SAG to go out. And nobody wants to see a repeat of what John McGuire talked about from 1980, or of what happened to the WGA in ’85.
As for projects happening out of the country, such as in Canada, Australia, Eastern Europe, etc., this has been a fact of the business for years. Most films that I have seen over the last few years were not actually made in the U.S., even if they were set here. And if you look at what’s been in production, the studios are not hurting for their slates for next year. They’ve been continuing in production with a smaller number of pictures – that’s been their adjustment to the current economic conditions.
We had a speaker on Thursday night that actually addressed this idea of confronting the moguls now because the economy hurts them more than us. He reminded everyone that this has been brought up as a strategy during every major downturn, and as a strategy, it always fails. Because it assumes that the AMPTP is ready to cave, and they aren’t. Not when they can make TV shows with AFTRA and when they can continue to have SAG work without a contract while it fights among itself. You have said that I have no substance behind my argument here. I reply that there is not a single example that can be quoted of these multinationals backing down to a single guild when they already have the means to ignore its protests. I am unaware of any recent history with the AMPTP where just the threat of a strike made them cave, at any time.
You and I can also disagree on whether Doug Allen’s approach during negotiations was reasonable. The mess of exactly a year ago surrounding the AFTRA vote was not what I would consider a reasonable approach, and it backfired badly for Allen.
I have yet to hear an alternative to the current situation other than voting no, and then trying to get a strike authorization. And if that were to happen, the only recourse then is to go on strike and hope that it works. To my mind, that’s not a strategy – it’s a hope that everything will work out if we shout loud enough. And history tells us the exact opposite.
BTW – I too enjoyed the fact that John Heard was wearing the Democracy Now shirt in his part of the ad. I have an older t-shirt from them that I regularly wear to work.
Bill -
Very good in traditional media? Like when they hand you a Pepsi and add a line about the product, and you’ve got an audition for Coke tomorrow you’re now going to have to blow off? Even though they’re not paying you a penny extra to associate your likeness with Pepsi? Or you’re an actor who’s well-known for having had a couple of benders, but you’ve been in a program for ten years and you’re proud of your chip – and they hand you a frakking Budweiser. That contract, Bill?
Or how about when you nail that audition and the producers hand you a contract that signs away all of your clip consent rights? And you’re like, um, I’m not so sure I want to sign all that away. And they’re like (snatching the contract out of your hands), that’s perfectly okay with us. We’ll just call one of those other ten actors who look a lot like you. That contract, Bill?
As for partnering with our sister union, well, that would be just fantastic. However, the level of control SAG has over AFTRA became quite clear when AFTRA ankled joint television negotiations with SAG over a made-up incident involving AFTRA soap actors (the actors involved have verified the actual facts of the situation – SAG did not at any point even consider poaching anything). IOW, no guarantees on that front sport.
If you’re going to tell us this offer is “a very good contract in traditional media”, know your facts. I would argue that those two provisions alone make this offer a giant crap sandwich in traditional media.
billcharlton-
I hear you. I do. But AGAIN offending those who don’t agree with you “Maybe the nonworking can afford to work under the old contract or afford a strike. I can not.” is the major problem associated with this entire issue.
You seem to be an actor who works, that’s great! But a LOT of those who’re opposed to this contract are also “working” actors. Dismissing a “No” vote decision as belonging only to those who hold cards but never work is any easy way to place a propaganda label on the entire body of those who oppose the contract.
You are MOST welcome to have a differing view as far as I’m concerned (that’s how debate and discussion works), but relegating a “No” vote to “The unworthy?” That feels more like a move of dismissal to me.
The On-Cam rates may be improved but the FUTURE is truly what the opposition is about.
It’s like offering a gardener who works on a single garden a small bump in their hourly rate while then having them tend a garden an acre wide and reaping generous profits through that extra space.
For the “Middle Class” actor who isn’t a Series-Reg, their employment rate goes up a bit (let’s say $775 to $800 at base rate) but in the long haul? With the movement to internet re-runs, that means that the $25 gained is actually drastically affected later with P&H contributions being dramatically lowered (via the currently offered internet rates.)
It’s brilliant BUSINESS on their end to get that. That means their pay-outs are dramatically lowered. If I owned a business and had to pay $10 for something but could get that lowered to $3, I’d be a fool not to do so.
It’s all about profit and keeping expenses lower.
Simple business. I applaud them for attempting it. It’s smart business. But, once again, with the history behind them (not making up for promises to re-configure rates for “New Technologies”) if they become popular, how can one NOT be leery of that factor?
“We’ll fix it next negotiation…” has been a way of avoiding reality for far too long now.
Let’s be honest…
While SAG has a DISMAL, embarrassing history over the last few years of spouting off separatist opinions publicly amongst it’s “factions” (a truly wretched practice) they still represent the “bodies” that make the entertainment shows/films happen.
The most important element of the visual medium.
Yes, EVERY crew member plays a crucial role in making that happen.
Without a gaffer you have no image…
Without a cinematographer the same…
Without an editor the same…
Without a Casting Director the same…
The list goes on and on.
And while those crucial crew members don’t get residuals for their work they do have steady employment for weeks at a time as opposed to “Middle Class” actors who show up for one week (or one day) at a time.
No one is watching a Tv show or movie based on “Gaffing.” That’s in NO WAY meant to offend those who do that job. (Without great gaffers you have NOTHING but dark screens!) But for John Q. Public buying a ticket or watching a show, they’re there for the story being told and the actors bringing those roles to life.
That’s worth something.
Otherwise we’d still have radio as the primary source of entertainment. No? And even then, were that the case, it’d still be about the “Voices” and “Stories Presented.” No again?
In this day and age of “Reality/Glamour” Tv when it seems ANYONE can be a “Celebrity” we often forget that actors mean a lot to a project. They’re people who’ve been approved (often by a large group of others) to deliver a bit of goods that lures the public to watch and (hopefully) keep watching multiple times.
That’s worth something.
And if this proposed contract draws salary away from those “Middle Class” performers, thereby affecting their health insurance qualifications and standard of living (those “outside” of firsthand experience with the industry’s inner workings assume EVERYONE “on-camera” is a millionaire), isn’t THAT something to consider seriously?
This is a sticky mess. It isn’t “easy” and it isn’t simply solved. But in the end, bowing to threat and public pressure based on “assumptions” doesn’t seem to be very smart.
Sorry for the long posting. I just haven’t yet been convinced that a “Yes” vote is the answer. (And TRUST me, I’m looking for any valid explanation addressing the issues to go that way.)
Bill Charlton -
For all who aren’t aware, was a commercial actor who feels he “lost his house due to the 2000 commercial strike.” That may be true, and if it is, it is an awful thing. BUT, this is a business of chance, and he may have lost his house anyway.
The bitter, hostile tone of his posts exposes a man who DETESTS SAG because he, in his mind, blames it for HIS PROBLEMS from a commercial strike that THIS year (2008) brought into SAG 800 MILLION dollars. WAY up from where it was in 2000. Did more commercials go overseas, out of country, nonunion? Sure.
Was that strike worth it overall? Look up the numbers for yourselves. Read the income to SAG from 1999 to 2008. You’ll see a drop around the strike, then a steady, BIG rise in contributions to SAG.
Do not let BITTER anti-SAG partisans, who HATE SAG and want to see it destroyed and sucked into AFTRA – like BILL Charlton – stop you from fighting for a fair TV/Theatrical contract, that, if we DON’T turn it down, will wreck SAG.
And don’t let his condescension that only “non-working actors who have nothing to lose” support a strike if necessary. That’s an anti-SAG, pro-AFTRA, pro-merger talking point that reeks of bitterness and hatred, and is very, very common on anti-SAG blogs, as well as in UFS, the NY board, and USAN. Shameful.
Do what’s right for the long-term interests of SAG. Do the RIGHT thing.
VOTE “NO.”
Bill Charlton writes: “I’ll also argue that striking over what is currently a practically non-existent revenue stream is not worth the money lost either.”
Bill, it’s hard to believe that a guy of your seeming intelligence could be in such denial over the importance of new media. Closing your eyes won’t keep that train from running you over.
Kevin–
“And nobody wants to see a repeat of what John McGuire talked about from 1980,”
Do you mean the John McGuire, Chief Negotiator, who said at the meeting we don’t know if the internet is going to catch on? Mr. McGuire in that statement proved himself to be, at best, completely uninformed and possibly in need of medical attention.
You may remember he defended his position saying “10 years ago we thought pay tv was going to be the next big thing and it disappeared.”
It would seem Mr. McGuire has a history of being wrong.
I would love to hear you defend Mr. McGuire’s comments about the internet, because I know you heard it just as everyone in the room did.
As for the subtext of David White’s comments, I repeat any good actor can read subtext.
Mr. White’s job is to support the people who gagged our president and put Mr. White in his seat. He’s good at going along with bad things and bad people, but unlike those he’s surrounded himself with, he must have a bit of a conscience and if you look, really look, it leaks out a little.
You can put polish on these people’s words as much as you like until water beads on their surface, but the best you will get is shiny lies.
as for what people like bill charlton think they’ve lost because of sag …
do you have any concept of or appreciation for what some actors who fight for you by serving on sag’s board and committees have lost? many of them have sacrificed their careers and been blacklisted because they’ve been outspoken union advocates FOR YOU. this was especially true prior to the 90′s.
do you even understand how voting yes on this devastating contract will ensure people like bill charlton will never buy a house with wages earned as an actor?
if this deal passes, everybody’s going to find out quickly what they allowed to happen. and then everybody’s going to have to fight to form sag 2.0.
the irony is, james cagney, et al, fought to form sag, in part, because they were successful and wanted to help non-stars. this time, the stars are fucking the non-stars, and they’re doing it deliberately. it’s disgusting.
it’s because of actor advocates/union activists like a certain man mentioned above that actors like amy brenneman and adam arkin are successful enough to shit all over everybody else right now.
And while those crucial crew members don’t get residuals for their work …
Oh, but we do. Not paid directly to us as individuals, but a good chunk of money from them goes into our pension and health funds.
So, we’re suffering right along with you actors. You may have heard about our new contract requiring us to work 33% more hours to keep our health insurance. In the past that’d be no big deal, but the way things are now, it is. The vast majority of us are not studio staff – we’re freelancers, just like you…
As I’ve said before, the only way all these problems will ever be solved is when ALL the unions get together, just like the studios already have with the AMPTP. Sadly, though, I don’t see any chance of that happening for quite a while. Eventually all this will have become so ugly that it will. Unfortunately, though, many of us will be long gone by then..