Cash Windfalls For WME Agents, Assistants 
A&E IndieFilms Sets ‘Happy Valley,’ … 
Hot Cannes Property: Natalie Portman, Lynne Ramsay Team On … 
Brad Pitt Hits Cannes With ‘Killing Them … 
CNN Hits 20-Year Weekday Primetime Low 
Longtime TV Exec Rod Perth Named NATPE President & CEO 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘House’ Ends Run On High-Ish … 
Does Cable News Clarify Or Confuse The Public’s … 
Mark Burnett’s Company Launches Scripted Unit, Taps … 
‘Mary Mother Of Christ’ In Lionsgate Deal 
Icon UK Group Joins ‘The Butler’; Forest … 
Best Buy Shares Up Pre-Market As Q1 Earnings Beat Estimates 
HBO Developing Comedy Series Starring Catherine Keener And … 
Will ‘Paperboy’ Heat Domestic Buying At Cannes? … 
Millennium Films Buys Spec Thriller ‘Playing … 
Will ‘American Idol’s’ Jessica Sanchez … 
Legendary’s Thomas Tull Among Just 3 Contenders … 
Harvey Weinstein Unveils ‘The Master’, … 
CBS’ ‘Rules Of Engagement’ Renewed For … 
Facebook Shares Fall Below Offering Price Even As Market … 
UTA Signs ‘Intouchables’ Star Omar Sy 
SAG is mailing ballots for ratification of the tentative TV/Theatrical Contract with the AMPTP on Tuesday, May 19th. So there’s controversy inside the big actors guild over why the new SAG leadership is waiting until May 21st in Hollywood and June 1st in NYC to hold “informational meetings”. The ballots, due June 9th, will include “Pro” and “Con’ statements in the accompanying materials. The lobbying has shifted into overdrive by both sides as of today.
First, the “Vote No” side held a picnic today in the Griffith Park Old Zoo Picnic Area attended by about 50 SAG members. It was attended by Alan Rosenberg, the SAG president, and SAG board members like Anne-Marie Johnson and Anne DeSalvo, and other actors and stunt community members who oppose the tentative Theatrical/TV Contract. “This picnic is a celebration of our tenacity and determination to get a deal for our members that allows us to feed our families, pay the bills and keep a roof over our heads – in short – to earn a livelihood at the profession for which we have trained and established careers. Come to the picnic and we can talk about why we must Vote NO on the SAG TV/Theatrical Contract and what more we can do to spread the word to the members,” said the email. Here’s video of the speakers:
As I’ve previously reported, the new SAG leadership is paying the PR firm The Saylor Company to strategize its “Vote Yes” campaign. (EXCLUSIVE: New SAG Leadership Secretly Hires Pricey PR Firm To Push “Vote Yes”) A few members of the “Vote No” contingent protested SAG’s hiring of Saylor outside the flackery’s offices earlier this month.
Today, the SAG National Majority uploaded a new video titled “I’m Voting Yes” onto the guild website. It features the following 34 actors (and directors and producers) said to “strongly” support the tentative TV/Theatrical agreement: Adam Arkin, Amy Brenneman, Stephen Collins, Kate Walsh, Thomas Kopache, Sam Freed, John Kassir, Dylan Baker, Judith Hogue, Ken Howard, Gabrielle Carteris, Ed Begley Jr, Jason George, Assaf Cohen, David Brisbin, Gregory Itzen, Robert Pine, Mark Linn Baker, Mike Hodge, Chris Sarandon, James LeGros, Jack Coleman, Matt Servito, Richard Speight, Ashley Crowe, Ellen Crawford, Rafael Sbarge, Joe Grifasi, Kate Flannery, Arye Gross, Clyde Kusatsu, John Rothman, Mike Genovese, and Mitch Ryan.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
Helen & Matt -
When the personal vilification and the name-calling starts
you can tell who’s already lost the war.
“The have’s versus the have-nots”
Seriously, Helen? No really, are you serious? Do you really think it’s that easy to change the conversation, to distract from the actual issue at hand? Which is: There is a contract on the table. At this moment in time, is this the best deal we can get? And should we vote yes or no? THAT is the conversation.
Not implying that the people who have a different opinion than yours are somehow elitist.
and Matt, I’m quaking in my boots as I now address you directly. I’m sure you’ll have something quite insulting to say about me, and surely there will be something terrible about my lack of integrity. Is it possible for you to have an adult conversation about these issues without deciding that anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or a terrible person?
I get that you are passionate about what you believe. And I have to assume that this comes from caring about the other members and wanting to help them.
So, what about the other people, the crew, the businesses that service film and TV productions, the actors who are just getting going, who are lucky enough to have gotten that first agent or that first agent after a long time without one?
Here’s what’s happening already — due to a work slowdown, people who have previously made their living in this business are scrambling for the few jobs there actually are. You can do the math and realize there are some that can no longer pay for their kids’ tuitions or make their house payments etc.
And the newbies who’ve just started to get a break are now on a playing field many times tougher than it was when work was flowing. And the same thing for experienced actors who managed to get a new agent and started to get work again.
And if there were a strike, the bad situation we are in right now, would be much much worse.
What is your answer to those people? The people who work with us, the 100 or so on every production who are not actors.
And really, what is your answer to all of us? The members, who would all be in the same boat during a strike — those who had an acting job would not be able to and those who did not have an acting job would not be able to seek one.
That translates to NO MONEY, NO BENEFITS, NO NOTHING. In 2009. Where people are already losing their homes and losing their 401K’s etc.
You and I fundamentally disagree about the points in the contract, but we can sit around arguing about those all day long and what I really want to know is what’s next in your view. WHAT IS YOUR PLAN? After the business is burned to the ground? What do you envision for us?
There are so many reasons to vote ‘NO’ on this contract. Personally, I didn’t have to read any further than the force majeure issue. These greedy studio pricks are contracted (from a previous contract) to pay actors what they owe. This isn’t a negotiated amount after the fact – it’s paid in full, or the vote is ‘NO’. Yes, I read the remainder of the contract, but my answer was easy.
I’m still wondering where all of this “work” is going to come from, when people say “let’s get back to work”. If you people really believe that SAG has slowed down feature production, why is “The Nancy Meyers Project” in full-swing? Why was “Angels & Demons” produced while SAG was without a contract, or under threat of strike? Why is there a Chris Rock feature film wrapping today? How about “Iron Man 2″? If any of these films can get made under the current union situation, then ANY film can get made. It’s not SAG holding up the film production bus – there are many other reasons production is down in Los Angeles. Read a newspaper.
Were this contract to be passed (and it won’t), everybody who voted ‘YES’ is gonna be running around wondering where all the movies are – all the movies that were claimed to have been on hold – and they’ll all be looking to the studios saying “Where are the movies? You promised us movies! You lied to us!”
Surprised? The studios are the opposition in this negotiation. Of course they’re going to tell you whatever they have to so that you’ll do what they want. It’s business. It’s money. And it’s cold-blooded on their end. No lie is too great; no spin too egregious.
Don’t give it all away without even a fight.
One point Matt Mulhern raised but didn’t follow up on is the current profitability of new media.
Anyone who’s saying new media is still “experimental” or that it is not profitable are either intentionally misstating the facts or they are woefully uninformed.
Internet distribution is growing in a huge way. Netflix and Amazon deliver their content to Tivo boxes through the Internet. I got an email from Tivo just recently crowing about Amazon delivering Blu-Ray level quality through the Tivo HD box. Apple TV delivers HD. YouTube is setting up Hulu-esque channels to deliver content from deals with some studios, and they’re going in the HD direction too. And my Tivo box puts YouTube on my 50-inch plasma in my living room. Right now.
Let’s put to rest the arguments about Hulu’s profitability. Whether Hulu as an entity actually makes a dime right now is not the point. Hulu is already paying licensing fees. Actors, writers, and directors should be getting a cut of those fees comparable to what they’d receive in old media. You know, residuals. They get nothing close, and the deal SAG is considering will do nothing to help that situation.
Does anyone think NBC put the Olympics on the Internet last year out of the kindness of their hearts?
The moguls know their younger audience has already been educated to consume content through the Internet. If it wasn’t for iTunes and Hulu, shows like The Office – which reaches roughly half its audience online – wouldn’t even be produced. They’re reaching eyeballs and making money via Internet distribution. A lot of money. Right now. And they want to cut the artists out of the take.
The long-term implication of this contract is we’d be taking chump change now and losing the real money down the road. Pure and simple.
Dear Justine,
How do you get a producer to use a ‘better’ contract (that would contain all the New Media provisions that you outline), when a cheaper contract (Aftra’s) already exists.
What do you suggest we hold out for? Extinction?
Nobody is arguing that you points aren’t desirable, they’re just not get-able right now, because Aftra has limited the negotiating ceiling.
Former Membership Firster said: “SAG is now contractually synched up with all it’s sister unions, and if there needs to be a strike when this contract sunset clauses out, well, as Nikki herself said, we will be poised for the mother-of-all-strikes with all the unions that represent those of us that make the product.”
With respect, the DGA could have aligned itself with the WGA and didn’t. There was a lot of SAG support for the WGA strike but little official support from AFTRA. An AFTRA official claimed privately that the WGA didn’t contact them to ask for support; multiple WGA members told me otherwise. AFTRA and SAG split on the theatrical negotiations but made nice for commercials.
My point is, there’s a LOT of fence-mending to be done for the entertainment unions to act in solidarity, and a lot of organizing. SAG’s organizing in particular was woefully understaffed and underfunded even before Todd Amorde ankled and David White announced layoffs.
This idea that we’ll fix it in two years is a lame procrastinator’s excuse to accept a rotten deal now. And given the nature of the precedents that would be set, by two years from now it will be too late.
The problem with your argument, Justine, is that it rests on an assumption, not a fact. It also clouds the entire New Media landscape into one bucket, not several.
You are assuming all reruns are going strictly to the Internet: however in the last week almost every single top rated show on the Networks that has ended its season, aired repeats. Bet those actors are happy — however, anyone who got scale, even scale top of the show, have just been shafted out of a substantial increase in their residual payments because we are working on an old contract. How do you justify that to a now 2 year window where the residual payments in New Media are going to be paltry(even in MF’s fantasy world) at best, and the entire sideletter scrapped and renegotiated. Are you afraid to actually do the research and homework(like the DGA did) to fully understand how this area is working? Justify that monetary loss over a purported miniscule gain to anyone that could’ve used a few hundred extra bucks this year, not in 2015.
Dear mheister,
How do you get a producer to use a ‘better’ contract (that would contain all the New Media provisions that you outline), when a cheaper contract (Aftra’s) already exists?
What do you suggest we hold out for? Extinction?
Nobody is arguing that your points aren’t desirable, they’re just not get-able right now, because Aftra has limited the negotiating ceiling.
There will always be a reason to vote for a crappy contract. That’s how the good of the one outweighs the good for the many. Sad truth of the human condition when I decide my 15 minutes of hoped-for fame is more important than any long, enduring economic arrangement for many.
I’ve been a working SAG member since 1993 and i will vote NO on this contract. All the PR and spin will not make me change my mind. The contract was ruinous for SAG actors when Alan Rosenberg could not recommend it to the membership, and it is still ruinous, even if Mr. White pocketed $400,000.00 to offer it to us. This contract is not acceptable. I am voting no.
TV will be delivered through the same cable it is delivered through now with a system-wide adjustment to your addressable cable box in the next few months. All content on your home TV will therefore be “new media” under the current AMPTP offer and you will lose any meaningful residuals.
The millionaires on the SAG YES video don’t rely on residuals or scale rates as their management team negotiate each one much better offers for their series regular credits.
Good for the millionaires–and I mean that– but they do not speak for the rank and file and those who work for scale. This contract will eliminate residuals and eliminate your ability to earn minimums to qualify for health care.
The minimums and clauses in the contract have almost no effect on the Millionaires and so they are voting for it. Those of us who rely on scale and residuals will be voting no to $40 a year in residuals.
See SAGDEAL videos on youtube. Vote No.
Dear Simon,
Please describe the scenario in which rejecting this deal gets us a contract that the AMPTP members will use instead of AFTRA’s.
What exactly is your plan, besides a knee-jerk negative response. This is just Opposition Defiance Disorder.
You say ‘No’ without the slightest inkling of a way forward.
Shall we strike? Is that what you think will work? Because we’ve already been at the table for month on end.
A strike or the threat of it is all we have left, assuming we could even get a Strike Autho.
And what does that get us? Will that have them racing back to the table? To do what? Get us a better residual schedule in New Media that no one will use because AFTRA’s got a cheaper one.
Seriously, anybody. What’s the plan? Because if don’t have one, then get out of the way.
bill charlton
voting yes for this contract DOES lock us into a formula for new media.
one in which they (the studios) gain everything
while they throw us a few crumbs.
remember the scene in It’s a Wonderful Life when there’s a bank run? and people
are trying to get their money because they’re afraid and
Potter offers to buy their shares in the Building and Loan for
50 cents on the dollar. George Bailey says:
“Potter’s not selling! He’s Buying! People are scared so he’s picking up some bargains.”
well, that’s exactly what’s happening now if we vote yes.
we’re selling ourselves cheap because we’re scared
and the AMPTP is snapping up some bargains.
and the bargains are us.
if the majority of us vote yes now, we’ll be postponing the inevitable
showdown over new media.
you say MF is living in a fantasy world regarding new media
being now media?
well, the folks who think it’s going to be easy to co-ordinate
SAG, AFTRA, WGA, DGA ,IATSE and Teamsters at some point in the future to exert maximum leverage against the AMPTP
aren’t exactly gritty realists.
they either have no idea what that sort of industry wide effort
will entail
or they just don’t care,
because when the time comes,
they’ll find another excuse for not standing up for what they deserve.
yeah, the DGA did their study and what they concluded was:
“THERE’S NOTHING IN THIS FOR US.” god bless them.
they’re not going to team up with us to put pressure on the producers.
they’ve got one leg on that side of the fence.
we’ll see what happens with AFTRA.
merger is not a slam-dunk and jurisdiction may yet be settled in the courts.
why would the Teamsters and IATSE work with us?
what’s in it for them?
personally, i’ve never understood why they don’t share in residuals in some fashion.
if we could cut some kind of deal with these guys then maybe…
but why else would they bother?
you are talking about mortgaging your future for some short-term gains. if you are willing to sacrifice your future and that of young actors just getting started for “a few hundred extra bucks this year”
you might want to think about another profession.
don’t want to step on anybody’s dreams, but times are tough all over.
i understand why some of the people in the video are eager to vote yes.
they’re on series and don’t want their revenue stream interrupted
during this very lucrative phase of their lives.
and i get that. it couldn’t be more human. selfish, but human.
and for the folks who are receiving AFTRA pensions or who are well vested in AFTRA and want to ensure through merger or whatever means that they will get their $100 K plus every year,
i get why they would want to vote yes on this deal.
also very human. also selfish.
but for the people here and on other sites who don’t work this contract
much ( some at all, really ) and want to vote it up basically as a means
of trying to destroy MF politically, that’s not terribly bright.
that sort of negative energy will revisit you.
to bluemel57:
people would’ve lost their homes and 401k’s even if SAG didn’t have these troubles right now.
SAG is not responsible for the recession,
nor for any mistakes folks may have made in real estate.
there are no guarantees in this business.
anything can happen. we all gamble on ourselves.
people run out of money and lose their homes even during the best of times.
what we as a union need to do
is ensure that when any of us do work we have proper wages,
working conditions and compensation for the RE-USE of our work.
if the residual structure or lack there-of is locked down now
for new media,
we will have have to turn the powers that be
upside down at some point in the future to get them to change it.
no matter how chipper the moderates may feel about
“the sunset clause”.
get it done, baby!
Vote YES — if you want to lose residuals as content is delivered over digital cable to your tv sets.
If you vote yes, you’ll be cutting your own throats.
You’ve been warned.
to BlueMel57:
You’re basically right.
There is no plan. They have no plan. Their political ideas, however arguably laudable or useful, have been completely bankrupted by the incompetency of their leadership. The only rhetorical recourse they have left is to blame and demonize those who have outplayed them in this fight.
What is at stake now is no longer the quality of our current contract, but the relevance of our guild.
bill charlton
the problem with your argument is that it, too, relies on assumptions
rather than facts.
you assume that the AMPTP will revisit the new media residual
and union threshold structure in success because of the
sunset clause.
you assume the growth of entertainment on the internet will be slow
and easily managed.
Bill Charton -
Justine did in fact do her homework. The content consumption (or “viewing” if you happen to the age of most of the actors in that vote yes video) patterns of consumers under the age of 35 varies markedly from the generations prior. The younger consumers are quite comfortable downloading and watching The Office on their iPhones, or their laptops. Go a bit younger, and a lot of kids who don’t have televisions do have PC’s. Their parents monopolize the big screen most of the time, so these kids become quite accustomed to getting their shows online.
These are content consumption patterns that are going to stick with them. They’re going to want what they want, when they want it. It’s a leap past the mere time-shifting their parents do with the DVR (recording the 9 p.m. show to watch at 10 after the kids are in bed and they can relax and enjoy); we’re talking a very different paradigm.
The moguls, to their credit, are very clued in as to where their customers’ eyeballs are going to be in the future, and they’re negotiating with an eye to the next couple of decades. The aging actors in that yes video – and I personally admire most of them for their work – don’t even realize what they’re giving away (I have to assume that, because if they DO know and they’re favoring this contract anyway, they’d be just a bunch of selfish heartless bastards).
Like the moguls, Justine is thinking strategically. The reruns you’re crowing about, Bill, are going away. And the network heads haven’t been shy about saying it publicly – to their bosses and shareholders at least. And Justine is quite right about the domino effect on the health and pension programs. As those programs are tied to BTL unions as well, they should be begging us to kick this deal to the curb. In fact, the WGA, AFTRA, and the DGA should all also be begging us to do better, because if we do, they benefit due to their MFN provisions with the AMPTP.
There are myriad good reasons – principled and practical – to turn down this contract, but only a comparatively tiny carrot ($80m carrot vs. BILLIONS in lost residuals going forward) as an incentive to vote for it.
I’d invite you or anyone else to prove me wrong, but you can’t because the moguls won’t agree to un-ass their new media numbers (which they have, because it’s extremely easy to track page views and downloads on websites).
We need to send David White back to the table with a clear mandate to get us a contract that doesn’t decimate the guild by crippling us in new media and stripping the guild of its ability to protect us collectively (clip use, force majeure).
Vote NO.
Todd (Waring), you’ve just made my point for me with regards to the “work” that’s out there and whether or not there’s less of it for SAG because of this contract impasse.
“How do you get a producer to use a ‘better’ contract … when a cheaper contract (Aftra’s) already exists.” [sic]
Every “vote YES” person is shouting about the loss of TV work to AFTRA. But as you just said, AFTRA offers producer’s a cheaper TV contract. If you’re a producer and you want to make as much profit as you can (standard business axiom), you shoot in Hi-Def and AFTRA is your answer for talent. TV production is going AFTRA because producers save a bundle (especially when the product goes online with no residuals), not because SAG said ‘NO’ to the shitty contract offer.
Again I ask, where is all of this work everybody thinks will be available to SAG if we pass this contract? You people who say, “Let’s vote ‘YES’ and get back to work” – where is this mysterious work you’re lamenting coming from? Oh, I know – the AMPTP told you it’s “on hold”. Yeah. Uh-huh. And the AMPTP would be…? Yeah, our adversaries.
And, so, when will all of you ‘YES’ voters be willing to fight for a better/fair contract if not now? In two years, when the AMPTP refuses to renegotiate New Media? How about ever? Are you ever gonna feel like standing up for something you know you deserve? Is that because you believe we’ve already lost? Maybe you think you don’t deserve it – is that because you don’t think your talent is worth making a career out of?
Don’t count on any of our sister guilds and unions to “align with SAG” for “the mother of all strikes” in two years. Ain’t gonna happen. As always, we’re on our own. It’s up to us, as a union of actors, to stand on our own and fight back.
When you joined The Screen Actor’s Guild, you joined a union. Sure, you knew you had to “pay to play” in this sandbox, and you’re really not unionists because you don’t like having to fight for something (arguing is so distasteful).
But there are also responsibilities in joining a union, and you agreed to them by joining. Responsibilities like respecting what others have fought for (and won) in the past – and, yes,struck for. You have 8-hour base workdays and weekends off (and/or double pay in some instances) and benefits because other people fought for them. You have medical benefits because other people fought for and won them. You have a responsibility to NOT vote popular TV stars (who have ZERO experience on any boards or negotiation committees) onto our powerful board just because you like their shows on TV. You have a responsibility to do what’s best for everyone in the union, not just for yourselves and screw everybody else (by negotiating owed force majeure dollars).
I don’t know where we’ll be when this contract offer fails, but I do know how strong a message a Strike Authorization is. No, I didn’t say “a strike“. The SAV is a powerful negotiation tool, and we haven’t used it yet. There were legitimate reasons for that over a year ago, but those reasons now moot. Do you think producers want to worry about a potential strike right now with all of the film production that is going on?
So why, really, are you people voting ‘YES’? Is it because you think new work will magically appear? Is it because you believe the offer is “solid”, as was stated in that ridiculous video above? Is it because you’re choosing to hobble other SAG actors in the past and future over your own (seemingly) short-term “gains”? Or are you just buying into the B.S. spin our adversary is spewing out?
I don’t know who GG Alin’s “cast members and friends” are, but I don’t know ANYONE who’s voting ‘YES’ on this contract.
New Media is happening right now. Shows are showing on the net for PROFIT (with no residuals paid to creatives) now. Fox is showing reruns ONLY on the net (coming soon). Millions of dollars are being made now on the net. Actors who were put out of work by the WGA strike are owed that force majeure money NOW.
Stop cowering in the face of oppression. Stop listening to actor/producers to whom this contract means nothing but a way to make more money. Open your eyes. Read what the contract offer has rolled back (removed) from your future. Stand up for yourselves, for chrissakes!
Just watched the Vote Yes video. If you get real close to the screen you can smell the kool aid in their breath. Have these people actually read the contract? Unbelievable. If you people think this will not set a negotiating precedent for new media, then please have the courtesy of shutting the fuck up because you have no idea what you’re talking about and I’m not going to pay for your ignorance with my livelihood. And fuck White and Maguire for hiring a PR firm to manipulate their own employers. The truth should be enough.
VOTE NO! VOTE NO! VOTE NO!
mheister, movies delivered to your cable box from Netflix or blockbuster or whatever are still old media and subject to the DVD rate(sadly); however, TV shows and movies downloaded to their iPhones will pay us at twice the DVD rate(in the new contract) — in other words 10% of 20% of distributor’s gross. That, in my mind, is a huge improvement.
And just wondering, in your mind, what are the Networks going to do to replace the many billions of dollars a year they make from Network TV? New Media is currently in the tens of millions. Will it grow? Yes. Am I going to risk my livelihood for some future paradigm that isn’t even proven yet? NO. TV didn’t kill of Film, now did it?
Ace, if you don’t know anyone that’s voting yes on this contract then it’s time to look beyond your fellow travelers to the world around you. There are lots of us. We’re not in the sixties anymore.
So many are mixing media in the contract.
NEW MEDIA is all about prodcut made directly for the internet.
MOVE OVER is the section regarding product made for Tv/Film that gets to the internet.
Alan Rosenberg and Doug Allen agreed to the terms of MOVER OVER last June…..and Justine, you were on the neg comm at that time and should these are seperate sections….
As for non-union…our lower-budget fuilm contract allow that, and have for many years, and it has not brought destruction to the Guild.
The fact is – our members have seen a significant drop in production for two reasons; the contract stalemate and the economy. Members all over are losing their health coverage/pension credit because their income is down. And with these delays comes a permanent loss of 1-year’s incremental raise…which gets compounded every year forward since raises are percentages based on the rate. We owe it to our membership to get them back to work.
The fact is New Media represents .03% of our total members earnings. Advertising is down all over, doubly for the internet. We are depriving our membership of $80 million+ since July 1 fighting over what to date has been less than $700k in earnings. That makes no sense….additionally these losses have cost the Guild income in dues dollars, and losses to the P&H funds….and any of those 67 pilots that get picked-up will give AFTRA the benefit of those dues/P&H funds.
Is this dealperfect? No. At what cost do we try to get it better – or is it even possible? We’ve lost more than we’ll make.
It’s time to vote YES…and start preparing for the next round of negotiations to fight to improve this deal, jointly in one form or another with AFTRA for mamximum leverage.
How so many of you have fought AFTRA for 18 months, and continue to disparage it, yet run for it’s board is beyond me – it shows a total conflict of interest which effects the members of both SAG and AFTRA.
Okay, Bill, you’re voting ‘YES’. And from what you’ve written, you believe that the AMPTP will renegotiate New Media in two years, correct?
Okay – what if they don’t?
What if they pull the same crap they pulled for VHS, DVD and home video, and they simply say “that’s a non-starter” and walk away from the negotiating table? What then, Bill? What will you be willing to do then? The ‘Sunset Clause’ is a legal loophole, and has been outed as such by more than a few very intelligent people.
What will you do, Bill? Todd? Danny DeVito? Arye Gross? James LeGros? Will you vote to authorize a strike then? What will any of you ‘vote YES’ people do then? In your heart of hearts, in your truest thoughts and feelings, answer that question to yourselves. What are you ever willing to do for the betterment of your union? Because when that time comes, and it will, are you going to continue to bend over and take it from management; continue to act like a selfish, spineless, whiny little b…?
“We’re already defeated” *sob, sob*. “They’ve beaten us.” *whaaa, whaaa* “It’s the best offer we’re ever gonna get.” *sniff-sniff*
When will it ever be enough for you to fight back?
Is any of that force majeure money coming to you, Bill? You know, the 40-200 MILLION dollars contractually owed to actors and SAG P&H by producers. Is it yours? By voting ‘YES’, you’re allowing producers to steal money from SAG simply because they don’t want to pay it (go figure). If it were your money, would you want it? If it were your money, how would you feel about your fellow SAG union members letting management rip you off?
For every dollar you think you’re not getting due to this contract impasse; for every dollar you won’t get in the future because you voted ‘YES’; for every single reason you’re considering accepting this crap offer so that people can “get back to work” to help them earn a living now and in the future… why are you okay with other actors – your own people – not getting the pay they’re already owed from the past? You would vote to take that money away from them? And you would publicly defend your position about that?
All of you actors out there who are owed force majeure money by producers, I want you to know that “Bill Charlton” and “Todd Waring” (whoever they are) are okay with you not getting your money – money from OVER A YEAR AGO.
Sleep well, Bill. And Todd. And John McGuire and David White. Hope you guys have your own bills paid because there are “middle-class” actors out there who don’t. And it’s on your heads if they don’t get paid every stinking dollar they’re owed.
Unconscionable.
The people I know are not livin’ in the 60s. We’re intelligent, current on the issues and we know legal-speak and corporate bullshit when we smell it. More than that, we’re not pussies. So wear whichever hat you like, that’s your right. Just remember that your decisions have deeper ramifications than you seem to comprehend.
Side note to Doug Allen: sorry I missed you again this weekend. I would have been there if could have. It’s impressive to me that you’re still around and involved. Shows the character we always knew you had.
In today’s breakdowns:
Internet Project
Comedy Webseries for NBC
$???
HULU LIVE ACTION SHOW
Internet Project
Internet Live Action Show
Run Usage: Internet
AFTRA
Pay Rate: $300/Day, names negotiable (rate wrong if this is actually AFTRA)
COMEDY WESTERN
Internet Project
NON-UNION
$125 a day
All of the above cases show MEDIA on the internet is being paid way below SAG minimums (even AFTER minimums) and there will be — NO RESIDUALS!
The easier softer way is not to vote yes. Voting yes will get us back to work now, however, it will lead to decades of indentured slavery to the colglomerate studios.
Strength, vision, power! Unite SAG and vote NO for a better deal and leverage.
Fighting powerful corporate greed DOES take sacrifice. So sacrifice NOW for a better life LATER!
Ok. One more time.
Let’s say we get back to the table and we threaten to strike, and the AMPTP cries ‘uncle’, and we get everything for New Media that the ‘vote no-ers’ claim we can get. And now we’ve got a contract that puts AFTRA’s to shame.
Why would anyone use it when AFTRA’s is cheaper??????????
You can’t fight the logic. We don’t have the leverage right now and if we did, we’d be pricing ourselves out of the market!!!!!
What’s so hard to understand about that?
Vote yes, by the way.