Today I was able to confirm the authenticity of this email sent by actor Jason Alexander to SAG members:
hello my friends and colleagues,
like many or most of you, i have been struggling over the state of our union’s current negotiations and the upcoming ballot to authorize a strike. it is a very complex issue at a very complex time. i have received emails and missives from several people of integrity, representing several aspects of the thought process.
for better or worse, here is my response. i offer it for your own thought process, neither to advocate for or against, but merely to weigh.
our screen actors guild, from my perspective, is in a very precarious position. we have been for many years. we have internal fractures that factions that cannot seem to find common ground and often cannot find common courtesy. we have had long standing relationships, like our agency franchise agreements, lost. we have seen our relations with our sister union, aftra, equally degraded.
additionally, our industry is undergoing enormous seismic shifts. i’m sure i do not need to point out that the pillars of our television and film systems are crumbling. a new technology is emerging to challenge the traditional formats and models. we are finally becoming an industry of the 21st century, but we are still tenaciously holding to structures from the 1900’s - structures of production, distribution, accounting, financing, etc. the necessity for “professionals” in the entertainment industry is being constantly challenged.
in a time when i believe all the creative unions should be sitting down with the producers and joining together to protect our mutual interest in keeping our industry professional and profitable, we instead pursue selfish self-interest and the marginalization of each other. we don’t need the outside world to destroy us, we can do it ourselves.
however, sag has a very current dilemna and it needs a resolution. to strike over issues that are real and legitimate, or not. our best interests are not being represented with the current offer and our reps feel that only austere behavior can move this negotiation forward. but the reality is that to do so, we would subject our entire industry to a work stoppage during the most catastrophic financial times in the last 50 years. can sag afford to be the nail in the coffin while being so close to being the corpse inside it?
my personal feeling is - no. i cannot in good conscience vote to take a stand that i know will stop good men and women from earning their livings at this time. i cannot stand on a picket line and prevent grips and gaffers and technicians and operators and caterers and office staff from earning their livings. i can’t send jobs that should be under sag contracts scurrying over to the even worse conditions of an aftra contract. i cannot tell people who are struggling that i come first. i just cannot.
what i am willing to do is accept a lesser contract and ride out these most turbulent of times. or better yet, i would ask our reps to accept the best version of the current deal but only for an 18-24 month limit. at that time, sag would have first and best crack at establishing a realistic contract going forward, instead of being the last guys into the pool. the dga sets the bar in each negotiation and we get relegated to those parameters all the time. let’s be the first union in going forward, instead of the last.
also, during those 2 years, we could and must focus on the two issues that diminish us the most - the vast internal chasm of our own union and the ever-growing gulf that divides us from ourselves in aftra. we must repair our houses. if our own ground is not firm, how can we possibly expect to make a stand for others? we have work to do, not work to stop.
we can survive a few years of less than perfect compensation in order to do the hard work of mending our own broken bones. we need to support each other. we need to understand each other. and we need, more than ever to work together with our fellow creative artists to protect each other and our industry as a whole. that is the best and greatest work we can be doing right now. not drawing lines in the sand over digital residuals.
yes, proper compensation is vital. yes, there are issues to fight for. but we are not an army ready to stand alone right now. nor are our allies ready to support us in that fight. so before we take arms, let’s pause and rally our troops, truly understand what we are fighting for and stand together. for that, we need time, focus and some very hard work.
i am voting no to strike authorization for now. we have other work to do. i wish you all a happy, healthy, peaceful, successful holiday and i look to our new year, and our new country with optimism and hopefulness.
your colleague,
jason alexander
like many or most of you, i have been struggling over the state of our union’s current negotiations and the upcoming ballot to authorize a strike. it is a very complex issue at a very complex time. i have received emails and missives from several people of integrity, representing several aspects of the thought process.


Bravo. Hard to argue with that.
Dear Jason,
If the commercial producers insist on the same deal from SAG as we have given AMPTP (under your proposal) should SAG put the good men and women in catering and crew out of work for a commercials strike? Or should actors and their reps lose all commercials residuals too?
Everything that Mr. Alexander is wrote is true. The economy is bad, AFTRA is stabbing SAG in the back, and the AMPTP/studios would love for SAG to dissolve and become meaningless. There’s infighting, a me first attitude, and a host of other issues…
All that said, at NO point have the studios/AMPTP EVER added or revisted or renegotiated or given more favorable terms once a contract has been signed. If anything, they’ve ignored the terms they’ve settled on (witness the recent issues with the WGA) and then, come next contract tried to take away things they’ve agreed to…
The future is NOW. To wait until some unspecified date that’ll never arrive is a fool’s errand.
The most compelling statement out of this is Alexander rightfully pointing out how futile a work stoppage is when AFTRA is there to fill in the gaps. There should be only ONE union for actors. This will happen again during the next round of negotiations unless a merger is fast-tracked. Otherwise, a lack of a united front will make any SAG threats seem inconsequential. AMPTP knows how impotent the actors are, and must be laughing their heads off at all of the in-fighting.
Jason…
You have millions in the bank and you’ll always be able to negotiate far about the minimums so of course you don’t care if any of us non-celebs ever get residuals again. I can’t believe you’re naive enough to think the AMPTP would renegotiate anything we give away now. And how about the $60 million in force majuere payments they’re already contractually obligated to pay they just want to ignore?
They did this to us with DVD, saying they’d reopen the discussion later on and they NEVER did. You got screwed on that one yourself… remember the Seinfeld DVD’s you refused to help promote because you wouldn’t make more than a few crumbs in residuals while Seinfeld himself made millions?
If we don’t negotiate a fair payment for new media now, we’re done. You’re not – because you could get residuals on new media projects if you asked for them… but how about giving a break to future performers who want a shot at making a living in this business? Do you really want to take away their ability to make a living? You won’t have anyone to act with who isn’t another celebrity soon because all of us will be off doing other jobs.
A strike authorization is NOT A STRIKE… but it gives SAG SOMETHING to work with in the leverage department that AFTRA hasn’t already taken away.
All those Seinfeld millions and he can’t buy a computer with a working CAPS LOCK!
Now to the content, the reasons he gives for voting ‘No’ are nonsense:
1. SAG will never get support from the fellow guilds, they have different interests (AFTRA in particular) it didn’t this time, why would it next time?
2. “all the creative unions should be sitting down with the producers and joining together to protect our mutual interest in keeping our industry profitable”… ARE YOU INSANE? The AMTP’s interest is 180 degrees opposite to yours, the less they pay people, the more profitable they are.
3. “we need to support each other” again, why would it be different next time?
The only sensible thing he observes in the propoensity for SAG to shoot itself in the foot, but if there was some loyalty behind the leadership (even if it is just for show) the guild would be in a much stronger position.
Isn’t “throwing it in reverse” exactly what the AMPTP/studios are counting on? What if SAG just stood their ground and refused to accept a “bad” deal, operated without a contract (as they’ve been doing for the past 6 months), waited the studios out until the economy picks up and then negotiate again from a stronger position–I mean there’s no time limit or exit strategy for the length a time one can perform under an expired contract, is there?
Better the old deal, then a “new” deal that locks in terms that are unsatisfactory, right? That way, everyone saves face for the time being anyway.
Just to correct Mr. Alexander’s comment about the AFTRA TV Agreement.
In fact the AFTRA TV contract is NOT worse than the SAG TV Agreement. When negotiations opened in the spring, they were virtually the same and at the moment it is demonstrably better, and more expensive for producers to use. That means significantly higher wages, improved working conditions, higher contributions to pension and health plans, etc.
The AFTRA TV Agreement took the DGA pattern and built upon it in the area of New Media, and got the “Covered Performer’ language…..if one professional performer is used, the entire production must be covered. And of course, secured jurisdiction over product made for the internet and for new media.
Anne
Somebody wants to run SAG…
I second that – BRAVO Jason Alexander. Thank you for saying out loud what we all hope MORE actors will feel….that a few extra dollars in their pockets ….even if they managed to get it, is not more important than the rest of us being able to work, feed our families, maintain our hours so we can maintain our health benefits and somehow manage through this already difficult economic time.
Thank you Jason Alexander. You ROCK!!!
There is a cosmetically decent thought in here and that is the short-term contract idea, which is a poison pill for the AMPTP. If they really want to play the “times are bad that’s why this offer is bad” card, then a short term/interim agreement forces them to put their money where their mouth is and renegotiate when times are good. Unfortunately the reality is that the bad-economic-times mantra is entirely disingenuous and is merely good cover for this crappy offer, which if we recall is the same crappy offer that was on the table when times were supposedly good. Likewise, the AMPTP is never going to agree to a deal that takes the DGA off the table as the trendsetter for all the obvious reasons.
Perhaps we might want to revisit history, because strikes very often happen when the economy is bad. The simple reason is because corporations always see bad economic times as good cover to screw down costs on their labor, usually with promises that when things are better the next deal will be better. But that rarely happens because by the time the next deal rolls around and things are better economically, the last model has become ingrained and employers huff and puff about percentage wage gains. If you’re making $1000 and I cut your wages 10% when things are bad, you go down to $900. Then if I give you a 10% raise when things are good you go from $900 to $990. I win, and that’s not even counting inflation. That’s the game the AMPTP wants to play here, and you’re going to let them.
“i cannot in good conscience vote to take a stand that i know will stop good men and women from earning their livings at this time. i cannot stand on a picket line and prevent grips and gaffers and technicians and operators and caterers and office staff from earning their livings. i can’t send jobs that should be under sag contracts scurrying over to the even worse conditions of an aftra contract. i cannot tell people who are struggling that i come first. i just cannot.”
I cannot in good conscience vote to prevent future generations from earning a decent standard of living.
We are not responsible for any group other than actors, and we will never improve our lot if we don’t do it now. I’m voting YES.
Outstanding commentary, Jason. You laid it all out beautifully. definitely the best writing I’ve seen on this contentious subject.
If I was sitting on 9 seasons of Seinfeld resids that had already been negotiated by the union on my behalf, as well as having the network primetime notoriety to negotiate whatever new contract I please, I would probably feel the same way.
Mr. Alexander has little in common with the rank and file who will struggle to pay their bills for the next 10 years with the terms of the June 30 AMPTP offer.
Jason Alexander writes, “like many or most of you, i have been struggling…”
He should hire someone to hit the shift key for him. He’s willing to bastardize our union and our elements of style.
When you’re rich tomorrow may look bright, but for the rest of us all we ever have is NOW.
I disagree.
Not…Yet…SCAB!
I’ve been reading the opinions from various actors who earn more from residuals than most actors make in a year and I find it amazing that they’ll strongly suggest people see their point of view when they are so far removed from the real war artists are fighting. And worse, this thing is at a point where actors are suggesting folks undermine the power and authority of their union without seeing the devastation to SAG that will come from a ‘no’ vote. This is not about combining strength three years from now and getting all the unions to stand up together. First of all, the DGA and AMPTP will make and announce a signed agreement long before the three year mark because they fly solo. They are in a whole different position than actors and writers.
The thing that boggles my mind is that actors are accusing their own union of forcing a strike because they won’t give in and sign onto this crap offer, when it’s the AMPTP who are forcing this action, NOT SAG. Don’t you get it? SAG doesn’t want to strike. They just want to protect actors and protect the guild. So, instead of being pissy and saying that SAG wants to strike and the leaders are looking to get you to vote so they can strike, why don’t you get on the side of your leaders and your union and say, “Come on AMPTP, don’t force this situation on us! Do the write thing. This is a terrible economy and yet you studios won’t do what it takes to keep everyone working?! What’s wrong with you, studio heads?” Why can’t Jason Alexander and others see it that way? THIS SITUATION IS NOT SAG’S DOING. THIS IS THE AMPTP FORCING THEIR WILL. I’m not in any of the unions. I’m just telling you what I see. SAG’s DECISION HERE IS NOT GOING TO PUT PEOPLE OUT OF WORK. IT IS THE AMPTP’S ACTIONS THAT COULD LEAD TO PEOPLE BEING OUT OF WORK. Stand by your union and vote for new leaders another day if you disagree. But, stand by your frigging union and stop trying to bury your leaders and the membership.
-Think it Through
Dear Jason,
Cut the e.e. cummings crap and use caps.
Squajo
Well stated, but doesn’t his keyboard have a shift key?
Jason,
If the actors who came before you were as naive, you would not have made your millions on Seinfeld. You would have made 32.50 an episode and not have your pension/health or residuals.
If you cannot understand that one generation is called upon to sacrifice for the next, your guild is doomed.
Perhaps it is anyway — as SAG does not cover digital technology (the real reason contracts are going to AFRTA)…
But at least man, have the courage and moral standing to fight the good fight on the side of right.
Sound reasonable while acting cowardly is cowardly. Actions speak louder than words, alwasy. You are either a fighter, or a folder.
I guess we know who you are.
This is just foolish. There is never a good time to strike. They are a necessary evil and if we do not draw a line now, there will be no future for middle class actors such as myself.
Written arguments are more convincing when they are grammatically correct, at the very least. This argument is as much of a sham as the idea of a millionaire actor about grips losing work. What about the struggling actors who will lose out on this deal? They should be the sacrificial lambs? What a narcissistic prick.
I guess most of the comments are about spelling. Way to go opposition.
Everyone who opposes a strike is branded a coward (not to speak of a “narcissistic prick” with poor grammar skills). Really? Let’s see some courage from the SAG board: send out the strike authorization vote, along with the AMPTP’s deal proposal for a ratification vote. Empower your membership to make a real choice.
My guess is that Rosenberg and his many supporters around these parts don’t want that because they know which proposition will get more “yes” votes in this economy.
Cowardice? Pot. Kettle. Speak amongst yourselves.
Wow…hard to believe that one of our own actually said something so reasoned and smart. Seriously, it feels like someone is actually looking and listening to the world around us…
nicely done.
In reality, all this does nothing to help Background…the heart and soul of Hollywood (unless you call 1 or 2 additional hires and a 3% raise help)! With as little as $7M profit for the worst movie made, you think Background could be compensated for what they should be making if they had continued to keep their own union (say $260/8 plus consideration for featured bits and al the other things that got thrown under the bus when SEG merged with SAG). Bottom line should be make AMPTP pay for sticking it to any actor…and PERSONALIZE THEIR GREED, not actors trying to make a living.
Don’t forget THE OSCARS!
Since we’re just throwing out ideas here, “neither to advocate for or against, but merely to weigh,” weigh this.
If there’s one sticking point with the studios, it’s the Oscars. Don’t strike now. Strike a week before the Oscars and watch the AMPTP scrabble their little tushies off. In fact, if SAG could just strike the Oscars and nothing else, it would have a minimal impact on people’s salaries and a maximum effect on AMPTP negotiations.
Sure a number of people who do the Oscars would be hurt, but that’s nothing compared to a long term strike. It’s probably the one leverage SAG has that will work. It worked for the WGA. Though they settled for far less than they should have. Everything else without the Oscars is pretty much futile.
Great Jason!
By encouraging a No vote on the referendum, you just influenced Union actors to allow Non-Union actors to work in NewMedia projects with a budget of under $15,000 per minute. (Current budgets are between $2,000 and $2,500):
Here are the 12 Outstanding Issues at a glance:
1. Union Contract Coverage in New Media:
If producer chooses, no original new media production costing less than $15,000 per minute would be covered by this contract’s terms.
(SAG – All new media prductions made by Amptp companies are covered by the TV/Theatrical Contract. We have proposed a tiered system, similar to our low budget feature contracts, which sets minimums per budget level.) We have already signed over 700 independent NM contracts, we have the formulas.
2. Residuals in New Media – No residuals for made for new media programs reused on ad-supported new media, meaning the program could run forever and never pay residuals.
(SAG- All new media productions should pay residuals, regardless of the exibition platform. Residuals paid on all programs used in new media.)Its th old, “If they make money, we make a bit; if they don’t, we don’t.”
3. Residuals for Programs Produced Prior to 1974 and Moved Over to New Media – No residuals to performers in programs produced prior to 1974.
(SAG – Library product from the past should pay residuals.) Think about the actors who started this business…a residual could mean they are covered for health care.
4. Product Integration – No notice, no consent by actor, no compensation for product integration, and no study either.
(SAG – Performers notified and, if they consent, are paid when requested to extol a product in scripted programming. A study of product integration trends should be conducted.) This is going to directly impact the Commercials contract coming up in March ‘09. I wonder how much Jim Carrey was paid to spout about RedBull in his latest film? But that is beside the point; he gets millions upfront. We are concerned about the middle class actor, getting scale, and being forced to promote a product without compensation, or else lose the job.
5. Background Actors – In Western background zones, adds 1 background actor, excluding 1 standin, to the TV coun and adds 2 background actors, INCLUDING all standins, to the theatrical count.
(SAG – Staring in the first contract year, exclude all standins from the count (AS THEY ARE ON EAST OOAST JJOBS), while increasing BG numbers by 2, then by 3 more in the second year, and by 3 additional in the last year. Additional background zone in New Mexico.)
6. Stunt Cooordinators’ TV Residuals – NO residuals for TV stunt coordinators
(SAG – Residuals for stunt Coordinators.)
7. DVD Residuals – No increase in DVD residuals
(SAG – P&H contributions paid on top of the current DVD formula, thereby increasing the formula 15%)
They said we would “revisit” this formula years ago, remember?
8. Force Majeure – Cuts force majeure provisions (protecting actor’s pay) from our contract, making individual actors bargain this seperately.
(SAG – Preserve the Force Majeure provisions of the contract that have protected actors’ pay for decades.) This is another Rollback – And currently, none of the force majeure money has been paid to actors for the WGA strike, somewhere between $60 and $400 million dollars.
9. Union Security in New Media – Performers engaged to work on a covered new media productin would not be required to become a member of the Guild in good standing untill they worked for at least ninety (yes, 90) days.
(SAG – The current contract says that membership cannot be required of a performer by a producer as a condition of employment until thirty (30) days after first employment.) Goodbye Taft-Hartly
10. Mileage – No increase. Current reimbursement rate has not changed for 30 years.
(IRS reimbursement is 58.5 cents/mile. SAG is asking for and increase from 30 cents/mile to 40 cents/mile.)
11. Major Role Premium – Increase from 7.5% to 10%
(SAG is asking for an increase to 13%)
12. French Hours, Motion Pictures Only – On a vote of the cast present on the First Day of Principal photography, “french hours” would be instituted, meaning there is no designated meal break and performers eat when thy can.
(SAG- Rejects this Rollback to eliminate scheduled meal times.)
And Jason, by the way, we cannot just arbitrarily say we will end the contract in 18 or 24 months. The Amptp does not agree to Guild contracts being co-terminus. And what makes you think that all of a sudden all the guilds will be singing kumbaya in three years? The DGA had a chance to do that during the WGA job action, and they chose to cave, as did Aftra. THAT was the time to get together. But IMO everyone is just looking out for themselves, and not looking down the line to the next generation.
Stars will be able to make their upfront money, as long as they are compliant with their studio bosses, and middleclass, supporting actors who work with the stars will fall away, because their life-line, residuals, will no longer be there. This is the truth of what this deal is. If we sign off on it, we will not be able to renegotiate in three years….It never happened with the basic-cable formula, the VHS HomeVideo formula, or DVD residuals. What makes you think New Media is any different?
Please attend the Town Hall meeting tonight at 7PM at the Renaissance Hotel on Highland @ Hollywood Blvd.
Please go to http://www.sag.org and get the facts. It’s all there.
SAG People,
Listen to Frances Fisher and Eric Bogosian (on another post here).
These actors get it. These actors understand what is at stake and are willing to have some courage about the hard situation your guild is in today.
The “let’s push the problem three years down the line” group will devastate what’s left of your guild.
And it’s not SAG’s fault if a strike occurs. They’ve been trying for months to negotiate and the AMPTP lawyers have just been yanking chains and not making efforts to negotiate in good faith.
If there is a failure to communicate — it comes from them.
At the moment, SAG has the weaker hand, so the AMPTP can push them around.
BUT VOTE YES and the whole power dynamic shifts.
Doesn’t mean there’s a strike, just means you have some leverage.
You will get NOTHING WITHOUT LEVERAGE.
Don’t let the weak of your guild mislead you.
he’s right. dead on. sure I will suffer as an actor but he is right. and we are all suffering. we must rebuild, grow strong, not posture and crumble.
Jason Alexander’s argument is largely existential, philosophical angst, and therefore, bullshit.
Francis Fisher’s post is the real thing. It is accurate, detailed, issue-oriented, and worth considering before you make a decision.
What bugs me most about these “stars” who signed the “no strike authorization petition” or Jason Alexander, who was somehow under the impression we were waiting to hear from George before we made up our minds, is that, I would bet you my left nut, if you got 85% of those “stars” who signed that petition, and pinned them down in a specific conversation about the issues, the precedents and what’s really at stake – not for THEM of course (nothing’s at stake for them) – they would look at you and say “I’m sorry, I don’t speak mandarin Chinese.”
Where did Jason Alexander ever get the impression middle-class actors give a flying fuck how he feels about the killer contract facing US? The guy soaked Hollywood of enough money on “Seinfeld” to power Switzerland for ten years.
And good for him! He got the brass ring! He’s funny, he’s talented, boo-yah Jason! But I throw up in my mouth a little when he writes things like:
“i cannot tell people who are struggling that i come first. i just cannot.”
Where did you ever get the idea that if SAG strikes, ANYBODY will think badly of YOU?
YOU are writing this letter from the top of a pile of money taller than a fully extended cherry picker on a firetruck. YOU will survive the oncoming storm no matter WHAT happens. YOU never have to work again.
The rest of us middle-class actors? WE don’t CARE what the “stars” think. The playing field gets real level all of a sudden, doesn’t it?
It goes from “oh, my God – I have a scene with Tom Hanks!” to, “Tom Hanks just sold us down the fucking river.” (which he did).
1. phasing out of residuals
2. loss of clip consent
3. product placement turning actors into shills for products while in character in TV and film
4. loss of force majeure and the AMPTP telling us to blow ourselves on that 60 million they owe us.
That’s what this is about Jason. It’s real, real simple. We get it now, or we don’t get it. There is NO precedent for producers coming back and making things right on big-ticket items like VHS/DVD and now, the mother-of-all big ticket items, new media. If this deal gets signed as is? Middle class actors incomes drop by half. Not tomorrow, but soon, and for good. That train aint never comin’ back George.
This is ONLY about obtaining a strike authorization so we can empower our negotiators to FINALLY bring something to the table beside their dicks. WE give them a strike authorization and they get to walk into Nick Counter’s office and say “O.K. here it is. Now – do YOU want to cause this work stoppage, OR, do YOU want to actually NEGOTIATE – for the FIRST time, instead of selling us this shit-sandwich and then taking out ads criticizing us for not liking it?”
It is THE EXACT RIGHT THING TO DO. Without it? We got nothin’.
With it? We got all we need to at least FIND OUT if the AMPTP wants to cause a strike over money and protections they could EASILY afford to pay and give actors going forward into new media, OR, if the fear of transparency, and the studios inability to disguise their thievery, once exposed to the light of verifiable “hits” on-line, has them so freaked out they are willing to cause a work stoppage with SAG simply because they have no idea how to do business honestly.
Honesty is not a viable “business model” in Hollywood. Never has been. And the thought of it strikes fear into the hearts of those who move money around from hits to cover losses, who “roll the gross” so “profitability” becomes a flexible term that could take years, or never come at all for those lucky enough to have “net points.” And a hundred other ways they rip actors off – every day – since the business began.
So, please – don’t spread misinformation and fear to the membership who are looking to people like you to know what the fuck you’re talking about, when you so clearly don’t It’s not helpful. If you’re going to vote “no” – great. Tell your dog. But leave us out of it.
to Frances Fisher
Points one and two are well taken and I believe they are valid but the rest are just smoke.
Point 3 just how many times can a performance be paid for and how many people will watch something made before 74 anyway.
point 4 how can you take the leap of faith and say that this provision will affect commercials. red blue does their ads with animation and voiceovers at least from what I see. Jim Carrey is not going to get core drinkers of that crap to by more and red bull might even hire him to hawk it in Japan. Product integration pays for part of the production, it may pay you. besides I’ll seen stars say no on the set and guess what it was no.
point 5 and 6 Since when did the the guild care for those two groups in the first place
point 7 no one has gotten an increase in dvds and where in contract language does it say that they will revisit it. Show me in any contract. you see that’s the great myth here. What promise was made ,was it verbal. Verbal is not binding.
Point 8 Force Majeure wasn’t it your guild that said that the WGA strike was Sags as well. Shouldn’t you suffer the same fate that the rest suffered no pay for no work. The truth is that under contract your owed that money and they will pay it. The only question is how much your leaders are willing to sell out to keep the provision. As far as I know this may have been the second time they would have to pay. On top of that it’s a civil matter. Trot out the lawyers.
point 9 Taft Hartly is a federal law that no contract can get around. The IA did it for years until it was challenge, It didn’t even go to court. The Amptp got rid of it . Just ask Nick he’ll tell you. Its a non starter they know it and you know it.
point 10 I agree that mileage should be increased,with the price of gas the car and insurance it should be 60 cent. only fair, but my question is do the non union extras get 60 cents because it a contract provision and they are non union therefore not covered.
point 11 Is that for the whole contract life or is it for each year. If it’s for each year you guys made out. The IA get 3 percent a year that’s 9 percent over three years. Dga ads get 3 percent as well. Please be clear about this.
point 12 All it takes is one actor in a secret ballot to say no, plus you would have to get the crew to say yes for it to work. I’ve worked on one french hours show and was paid meal penalty in the end. The producer didn’t adhere to the food rules. Maybe a non starter.
So we have what see 3 points of contention over that your willing to go out on strike. I’m shaking head here.
I hope this gets printed at least for the sake of balance on this blog.
I agree with one of the previous posts about the true culprit responsible should a strike occur. Why do some of you people always blame the little guy (the union) instead of the people flexing their power and refusing to negotiate in good faith (the studios)?
Jason Alexander makes some interesting points, but I think they’re pretty much based on wishful thinking. The way the studios handled the video issue and never revisited it, despite it becoming cheaper for them to produce videos and especially now that dvd’s are even cheaper, is really all the evidence we need that there is no better deal down the road. If the AMPTP was serious about sharing new media fairly in the future once they figure out how it’ll all play out, they’d fix the horrible dvd deal that was created decades ago.
And although hard economic times are a reality for all the little people, don’t think the studios aren’t affected by it as well.
L. Rox rocks. Print up that post and read it over and over. The leverage shifts if SAG votes YES. And Jason Alexander can go on with his plans to make Dunsten Checks In Again or sell more chicken or whatever. If SAG members stick together, show solidarity and stand behind their leadership, the studios will have to address SAG’s concerns. And if you think SAG should stop right now and agree to what’s in front of them for the sake of the community and business and all, then I have to ask you, “Why aren’t you suggesting the AMPTP get reasonable for the sake of the community?” Why are you getting into the face of your union rather than standing tall with them? The f is wrong with you that you would do something so decisive that helps the AMPTP and weakens your union?
If SAG actors get behind their leadership and vote YES, then come February or sooner, the AMPTP will make some statement about having to be the bigger man for the sake of the community, blah, blah and they’ll give here or there, just a little but let’s hope it’s enough to get to an agreement. It’s the AMPTP that has brought this situation upon the community. And it’s certain members of SAG that are making this much worse than it ever had to be.
- Think it Through
Bravo to a brilliant analysis and sensible decision by Jason Alexander. I have been saying this exact same thing for the past six months!!!!!!
And with only two years left until we would begin new negotiations (yes, we’ve wasted a year already), his timing is as brilliant as his analysis.
Unlike our current blind, moronish leadership, I am a West Point grad with a Masters in Business. I understand both the business side and tactics and strategy of negotiations (and war). Doug Allen and Rosenberg understand neither, which is why we’ve walked into ambush after ambush and find ourselves at the mercy of both the AMPTP and AFTRA at the same time.
With new leadership, a better economic climate, and GOING IN FIRST next time, we can fight the fight when it’s more relevant, which is not now.
I also am voting NO. Let’s fix our relationship with AFTRA first so we negotiate as one union representing all actors next time as well.
And let’s follow the example of our newly expected President Obama and do the right thing for EVERYONE in the business, not just selfishly for ourselves.
Thank you, Jason.
In any business contract, you CANNOT assume the burden of loss hoping to renegotiate that concession at a later date and claim you didn’t think it was fair then. You would be agreeing to it as a WIN-WIN.
SAG must take a stand for itself now; it’s what an honorable union would do. There is NEVER a good time for strike authorization, but the right to remove yourself from signing a bad contract is neceasary. You know this, Constanza.
Jason, If only the AMPTP was as gracious as you. Sadly they are not.Your concern for the crew is well placed but your concern for the future livelihood of SAG members would be best expressed in a YES vote to authorize a strike.Please reconsider and have a happy holiday!
YOUR IDEAS SOUND LIKE QUIET DEFEAT.
SELF-SERVING WORDS TURNED UP THE HEAT.
WITH SURRENDER SO TRUE,
JUST ONE QUESTION FOR YOU.
ARE MOGULS’ BALLS SALTY OR SWEET?
To just a thought:
Who wants to watch programs made prior to 1974? Ask the cast of I love Lucy that question. Those reruns earn 30 million a year and those actors have never been paid a DIME in residuals. As long as a show reruns, the public identifies the actor with that role often times preventing them from getting new work. You don’t think the producer should share even a pittance of those profits with the actor whose career has been identified with that role?
To: Just A Thought -
Who wants to watch programs prior to 1974? Just ask “T.V Land” and “Nick At Nite” who have made millions off these old shows that the producers don’t pay a dime to the Actors — Bob Denver (Gilligan of “Gilligan’s Island”) died penniless and Sherwood Schwartz (Producer of “Gilligan’s Island”) is a very rich man. Mr. Denver could never play anything other than Gilligan because people so Identified him with the Character that was playing in their living room 5 times a day — Crazy!
Thank God for Mr. Rosenberg for standing up for these people who have been so hurt from a medium they didn’t know about at the time — syndication. Hopefully now they can start making a little money if they’re going to be over exposed once again.
And hopefully we’ve learned something from the past as we are embarking onto this new medium called — the Internet.
Not…Yet…SCAB!
I luv that comment by P. Lee.
But Jason is right on his sad/happy face, two-faced comments. I use to be union steward in AFSCME. We voted to strike, management threatened to replace us. The members voted to un strike. I paid the price, caz my name got mentioned on the original strike vote. 17 years later would I have voted to strike and let my name be used like toilet paper. HELL NO. Paid a price economically.
That seems to be the central issue here. But what did the industry really learn from the writers strike. Strike a pose/deal and you still don’t get the money from DVD and Internet.That’s the lesson.
As for AMTP. Listen up,if you have ever suffered through a 20 second online advertisement for Viagra . Well, any fool would know watching TV on your computer is not a good business model to rely on.
As for the strike. Don’t strike and you don’t get the money. Strike and you loose your money to combine your dollars. Solution. Actors, buy some land, build a sound stage and do it yourself. Then the studios will respect you as a true competitor. Then you can pay yourself what you want. With all the A-D actors I’m sure you can come up with 34 billion.
I can’t write a long commentary other than to urge folks to take a step back and listen to how reasoned and balanced this is. People from every industry wish and would like to preserve or earn more. Many professionals too work in places by contract and have earned the right to renegotiate but know in this climate it isn’t realistic or right to not be a team player. We must preserve our humanity and know we as a world are going thru a rough patch. Things will improve. We just must wait with those in every industry and not hurt so many others along the way.
Hey Jason,
Why not empower the union NOW with a strike vote “YES”.
Hammer out the best deal possible with AMPTP NOW and then give them 18-24 months before the new contract kicks in? If things don’t improve by then we’re all screwed anyway. That way everybody stays working. The AMPTP can’t cry poverty and the union wouldn’t be continually weakened. In fact you could anticipate a fire storm of activity. Then in two years we will know where we can improve for the next contract with out having had our balls cut off entirely.
Paul Satterfield
Residuals dependent member for health insurance.
On the strike: I emailed Alan Rosenberg with a bunch of questions. I received no response from him or his office.
I asked how things have, in recent years, been improved for actors/writers based on previous strikes? In my humble opinion, the lack of work is GLARING now as opposed to years past. Also, why now? A new contract will have to be negotiated again in only 2 ½-3 years. I’m told the issue of residuals will never be revisited after this wave of negotiations. Why? Can’t SAG just say, we’re unhappy with new media residuals during the next negotiations and not sign? For many people, a strike means they will have to find other work; we all see the state of the current job market outside the business. So again, why now?
As to residuals for theatrical work, I don’t see that money now anyway. Sure, pennies trickle in, but it’s nothing I can live on–oh and I’ve gotten my share of residual checks for .01 cents. How much did it cost SAG to process that check for me? I think they deflect the cost in the raising of my dues. What’s the last TV show you did that brought in enough residuals to pay your monthly bills? The last show I remember paying me any decent residuals was back in 1998 – ten years ago. TV has changed so much; it’s almost all original programming and much of it crappy reality shows without actors and writers (although now those non-union writers are trying to get into the WGA – what a JOKE). I’m not sure we want to risk encouraging more of that from the networks. And that type of work is nothing I want to be a part of–EVER. It’s the dumbing down of America to fill the deep pockets of corporations who have no idea what great writing is, great talent is and you see it on the big screen as well.
I’ve heard some say, “We wouldn’t have all we have if those before us hadn’t stood up and fought.” But, doesn’t that argue every time there is a new contract to be signed, we go on strike for more? The contracts offered to us included increases. I’m not suggesting the studios were wildly generous or even fair, but they’re not forcing me to do anything. If I hate being an actor suddenly because of the terrible conditions I can walk away. An individual always has the ability to walk away, but with a union you are part of a collective and if the union walks away then everyone—even those outside the union—are forced out of work. I’m not saying it should never happen, just that it should be an option for extreme situations. Personally, right now, I’m very happy to get a job as an actress. It thrills me, and the money is better than any job I’ve worked outside the business.
The vast majority of my acting money has come from working theatrical and voice over jobs (session fees) and collecting residuals on commercials. I just don’t see these vast sums of money coming in for theatrical residuals. It’s so expensive in SoCal that it amazes me when actors say they need theatrical residuals to pay bills. That’s a lie. Now, if I had been a regular on The Office or something and was now not working I could see why this issue would be so important. But that’s relatively few people asking vast numbers of people to suffer for their benefit.
Julie Bowen mentions that she knows there is a “feeling” out there of people losing their homes. For many, it’s more than just a feeling. It’s reality. Actors who plan to vote “yes” should consider, “Would I be willing to lose everything for this? – the home, the kid’s college fund, health insurance, etc. – because that’s what they are asking of others to sacrifice.
Lastly, “authorization to strike doesn’t mean strike”: Correct. But it does mean that we actors put our collective faith in Allen Rosenberg. Where does your faith in him to do the right thing for the largest number of people come from?
Lastly, since 1997, production in Los Angeles has decreased by 40%. Wouldn’t SAG, if money earned by actors was really their top priority, be spending it’s time more wisely by fighting studios on runaway production rather than residuals on internet reruns? If they could fight CA legislature and studios, with the support of movie stars, to offer tax incentives to shoot here, wouldn’t that be hugely beneficial for all parties? Think of how many problems that would solve! If you could double the amount of work you got over the last ten years, would you care so much about missing a check from people downloading your episodes? But, that’s not a fight SAG wants to have—better to shut down work again for everybody. In Improv the rule is: Always be positive, never be negative. Keep the scene UP to push the scene forward. SAG should follow the rules of IMPROV and go forward with humor, class and keep the negativity surpressed.
I hope you understand where I’m coming from. I totally respect your decision. And, I may be wrong, but it is my perspective on the state of things.
Thank you for providing this balance.
hey jason-
here’s an idea. on your next job agree to take 500k less than your standard fee because we’re in horrible economic times and you don’t want to put the grips out of work. I’m sure the producers will agree to make it up to you 3 years from now (especially if you agree to NOT wear the grey wig)
man up, pal.
listen to frances and grow a pair.
Are you kidding me? Even seinfeld had more to say than this ridiculous letter. By the way, speaking about not wanting to put all those people out of jobs, not one word about how NBC just put hundreds, maybe thousands, of people out of work by putting Leno on five nights a week at 10pm. SAG members would not be putting people out of work but fighting for pay they deserve. And the networks are all going to use AFTRA contracts for pilots because it is such a bad deal. The actors got screwed and it is time they stand up. A shame that so many A list actors have decided to abandon their union when they need them the most. Shame on all you rich actors who have become producers and will not be affected unless there is a strike. Vote yes and support your union. It is the reason you can have the money, visibilty and wonderful lives you have now. Do not turn your back on all the hard work done over the years.
Oh, Good Lord. PCB: one of the main reasons NBC killed the 10:00 o’clock hour is because of the WGA strike (shows canceled because of extraordinarily long hiatuses, poor showings for new shows with truncated development time, fewer quality pilots, etc.). If SAG strikes for any length of time, there will be less prime time work because the nets will find alternatives to fill their schedules and some of them will stick. Would even the most militant MF member argue that a long strike won’t negatively effect the amount of prime time work?
As to “SAG members will not be putting people out of work [if they strike]…” Of course they would! That’s what a strike is! By definition. A strike will put tens of thousands of people out of work for some period of time, and a protracted strike will permanently take jobs out of prime time network television as networks turn to alternative fare.
Striking is all about a cost/benefit analysis: are the potential gains of a labor action worth the potential losses? If you believe they are, then by all means strike. There are a number of arguments on both sides that make sense. But don’t go spouting absolute bullshit to score points on Jason Alexander. A strike WILL put people out of work and it WILL alter the prime time universe – Jay getting the 10:00 strip is in no small measure BECAUSE of a labor action.
There is an innate tendency to believe these stars (Hanks, Clooney,Alexander?). They are successful,smart, maybe even good liberals. But don’t be fooled.They Have “Production Companies”.They are the heads of these companies.In other words–THEY ARE MANAGEMENT!If they are not going to support a strike authorization because it is a conflict of interest(and that is exactly what it is).Then at least have the decency to keep your mouth shut!