'Where The Wild Things Are' Runs $32.4M 
Oscar Can't Always Get What He Wants 
NBC Bright Spot Of Lousy GE 3Q Earnings; 4Q … 
Oops! Vivendi May Delay 20% NBCU Sale? 
65 Nations Vie For Foreign Language Oscar 
Elle's Women In Hollywood Power List 
HOW BIG IS BIG? AEG Predicts Michael Jackson … 
Sane Debt-Reduction Move By Redstone; But … 
EXCLUSIVE: Comcast Wants NBCU Deal Done … 
Almost daily now, growing numbers of SAG actors, especially those with well-known names, are taking sides on the Strike Authorization Vote issue. But I don't have the patience over the next few weeks to keep constantly calculating the star power of both the "Yes" or "No" solidarity signers. Especially when you can do it for yourself:
The "No" side can be monitored at http://www.nosagstrike.com/ by seeing who's put their name to Danny DeVito's and Rhea Perlman's original letter to Screen Actors Guild president Alan Rosenberg "voicing clear solidarity to the principles of union [but also laying] out the reasons they believe now is not the time for SAG to pursue a strike authorization". What was once the signatures of over 130 "highly accomplished and respected members" have now grown to 900 SAG members. High profile actors Russell Crowe, Michael Chiklis, Hilary Duff, Alyssa Milano, Julianne Moore, Robert Redford and Seann William Scott and others have joined George Clooney, Matt Damon, Tom Hanks, Pierce Brosnan, Alec Baldwin, and Josh Brolin in signing this missive to SAG Board members saying:
"We feel very strongly that SAG members should not vote to authorize a strike at this time. We don't think that an authorization can be looked at as merely a bargaining tool. It must be looked at as what it is -- agreement to strike if negotiations fail.
We support our union and we support the issues we're fighting for, but we do not believe in all good conscience that now is the time to be putting people out of work.
None of our friends in the other unions are truly happy with the deals they made in their negotiations. Three years from now all the union contracts will be up again at roughly the same time. At that point if we plan and work together with our sister unions we will have incredible leverage.
As hard as it may be to wait those three years under an imperfect agreement, we believe this is what we must do. We think that a public statement should be made by SAG recognizing that although this is not a deal we want, it is simply not a time when our union wants to have any part in creating more economic hardship while so many people are already suffering.
Let's take the high road. Let's unite with our brothers and sisters in the entertainment community and prepare for the future, three years down the line. Then, together, let's make a great deal."
The "Yes" side can be monitored at http://www.sag.org/solidarity-list where now 2,300+ SAG members have signed the guild leadership's solidarity statement. Newcomers like Laura Dern, Mary Stuart Masterson, Jeremy Sisto, Matthew Modine, Sharon Gless, Mo Gaffney, and Eric Bogosian have joined Sandra Oh, Mel Gibson, Diane Ladd, Holly Hunter, Jerry O'Connell, and Rob Morrow saying:
"I support the Screen Actors Guild National Board of Directors request for members to vote YES to empower the National Board to decide whether to call a TV/Theatrical contract strike, and if so, determine its timeframe. We must arm our negotiating committee with the collective unity and strength of the Screen Actors Guild Members."
In addition to the dueling websites and celeb lists, both sides will soon have dueling videos. SAG leaders have gotten out first on its website and at http://www.youtube.com/user/EmpowerSagVoteYes with new videos featuring Alicia Witt and Hal Holbrook and Martin Sheen joining those byo Clancy Brown, Charles Shaugnessy, and Justine Bateman.
But the real dilemma for me (and should be for everyone else) is how to weight both lists: By numbers? By TMZ heat? By generational mix? By movie stars over TV regulars? By actors over actor-producers or actor-directors or even actor-producer-directors? Your guess is as good as mine. But each SAG member has an equal vote.
Loading ...
The big guns with the big money are out in force pushing for the no vote. If it’s such a long shot, who are they trying to convince, and why the need to bother?
Not quite so coincidentally, the Oscars loom. The Oscars are the one thing that brought the AMPTP back to the table with the paltry concessions they handed to the WGA last year, approved by a mere 35% of the membership.
Now we have SAG complaining that their deal sucks. It does. Comparisons to the WGA and DGA deals are of little relevance. Those deals sucked too. What was that Wordplay thing about crap + one? The SAG deal is crap + zero.
My take is their ace in the hole is an Oscar boycott or strike. It’s the one barrel they have the AMPTP over, maybe the only one. Use it guys. A well timed strike or boycott targeting the Oscars could just work.
Oscar boycott: Maximum impact at minimal risk.
I don’t recognize the majority of names on the SAG solidarity list.
On the No SAG strik list, I can recognize probably one out of every three or four.
With respect to the big names on both sides of this fight, a clear-eyed look at the situation has already led the vast majority of actors to reject the AMPTP’s “last best final” offer. We are simply moving with deliberate speed to the next logical step.
SAG leadership needs this tool in its ongoing effort to budge the AMPTP from its obstinate intransigence. The only threat that matters to the moguls is a threat to their bottom line. The only way to threaten their bottom is to make it crystal-clear that these issues are important enough to actors to authorize a strike, and if necessary back that authorization up with a labor action. Nobody wants a strike, but the moguls are backing the actors into a corner. The AMPTP is pushing this through their intransigence, their demands that the actors give up tens of billions of dollars in residuals over the next two decades.
Our choice as actors is clear.
How accurate can a list be that contains King Kong as a signer?
Yeahhhhh, Jason Alexander’s so adamant about his Oscar hopes that he HAD to write that letter.
And real quick, can I point out that the ‘Well of course -Big name celebrity- is against a strike, they’re already rich’ argument holds no water whatsoever? If that line of reasoning held up, they wouldn’t give a shit anyway, because, as we’ve already pointed out, they’re fucking rich.
Furthermore, I like how many adamant VOTE-YES voices seem to hear the Vote-No arguments with such spite and resentment. Talking to any one of these card-holding baristas, you’d think that Jason Alexander was born rich & famous, or that George Clooney didn’t have a mullet in the 80’s. You think you’ve got it so tough, try going to work non-union for a few years. And while so many seem to harbor the same resentment for Below-the-liners, spend time on any set, and you’ll often hear a phrase growled through shit-eating grins: living the dream.
And while it’s a bit of an ironic statement, need we be reminded that perhaps the dream should be success wrought from hard work? (And no, I don’t consider mucking the industry down with useless union politics for over a year ‘hard work’. I call it arrogance.) I know we’re in the town of wild fantasies and imaginations, but I think that’s an idea that’s pretty down to earth.
This internal battle gone public is exactly what management wants; divison that will grow worse with internet prodding. Very sad. And very short-sighted.
Lord in heaven, is this silly or what?
Unsurprisingly the No side has way more high-profile actors on their side. Of course – these people have all the money in the world and don’t want a yucky strike messing up the pet projects they have going. They don’t give a rip about this deal because they negotiate their own deals. They can’t have the Oscars interrupted because they’re all up for Oscars. I’m sure I’m not the only one who finds it disgusting that the wealthy class is so vociferously encouraging the lower class to vote against their long-term interests because they wealthy can’t stand a few months delay on their latest extremely important car chase/chick flick. The sad thing is the vast majority of these people describe themselves as liberals. Proof once again that you can talk all you want, but once it becomes a question of my big money, everyone turns into a Republican.
I’m glad the WGA didn’t wait to join a potential SAG strike. Actors are a unique, possibly dying breed, split into a thousand different brackets. The perennial thesp. question of motivation now takes on interesting dimensions (for which the DGA probably wishes they asked for more to compensate for their proximity pains.)
Hot off the Press: Hitchcock has rolled over in his grave.
FWIW…history is repeating itself. One of the main issues is the argument that AMPTP needs time to “develop the biz model for New Media”… well think back a bit… HomeVideo / VHS was consider “new media” back in the late 70’s – early 80’s…. then came DVD… same argument. And even though production costs continued to drop, distribution developed through more Vidstores & critical mass via VCR’s & DVD players becoming ubiquitous…. did AMPTP come back with a “thanks for letting us develop the homevid biz model…here’s a little more for the actors / writers pockets…” we’re still waiting… I got a residual check today for a theatrical I acted in ‘87… my Free TV & Pay TV net was $36… my DVD: -0.47… seriously!!
Hanks, Clooney, Damon… yeah.. keep in mind those guys are also “Producers” (Hanks’: “Charlie Wilson’s War”, Clooney’s:”Michael Clayton”, Damon’s: “Feast”)… and they have more in common with AMPTP than they do SAG. Hank’s wife, Rita Wilson has been a Producer( “My Life In Ruins”, “Mamma Mia”) and Hanks’ production relation with Spielberg is well known… so everyone should know where he’s coming from. I remember when he once appeared at an awards ceremony, proudly holding up his SAG card and extolling the benefits he’s enjoyed through SAG membership… sure he’s got a right to speak his mind…but it’s coming out of the mouth of a producer and not an actor. That should be obvious to anyone.
The only thing that seems to get the point across to studios & producers is when the workers stop working. Will it be painful….probably, will there be shake-out? Sure…but unless professional actors are willing to keep accepting less for the promise of a better day, they need to recall how much they’re getting from Homevideo VHS / DVD residuals and ask: “When is that better day coming? AMPTP has had more than 25 years to make good on homevid… it hasn’t happened yet!”
@ Josh: Are you a child actor? Your post was a non-sensical tantrum. Go sit in the corner.
Of course, if you just look at the news, you see that it’s just production cuts everywhere. For all their credit crunch rhetoric, producers aren’t exactly killing themselves trying to give some of that money (including the money that should belong to writers and actors) back to the economy. In fact, there are at least several articles a week reporting the exact opposite.
I respect most of the people on the NO list immensely, but fail to see how saying “the economy sucks, how sad” and rolling over, giving away a contract that’s actually in tune with the times we live in (new media and all), and effectively signing away the little guy’s paycheck to producers, can possibly help the economy at this point or accomplish anything other than cater to AMPTP’s greed.
Also, since when is taking the high road an effective strategy against corporate manipulators and bullies? It’s probably the most tragically misguided thing actors can do.
If you don’t recognize names on the “Yes” list, that does not diminish it, that speaks to its truth.
These are the actors who will be hurt by a 50-60% pay cut (as will tehir smaller agents). The people whose faces you may or may not recognize and names you probably won’t. These are the people who will be forced to pack up and leave LA, NOT BECAUSE THE AREN’T BOOKING, but because they are booking and still can’t make a living wage as an actor.
People on the “No” list – look at the “yes” list – these are the people who you are telling they don’t deserve to be able to pay their bills by being a working actor alone. Think of the wages and working conditions you benefited from – how do you think we got those? Think about the fact that normal working actors do not have the power to ask for more or what’s fair on their own, they NEED SAG to do that for them. Think about the fact that acting as a profession has NEVER in history been regarded with respect – you are saying that’s correct. That what we all do is nothing that a hobby. That it is ok for us to sanction NON-UNION work in our UNION contract – because I guess anyone who is cheap can also act. You know better. You are selling out the people who have trained and worked to become professional members of SAG, just like you. You are selling yourselves out. What will you do in your lean times with your $23.00 residual check? Take a friend to the movies – in case you didn’t know, entertainment is uplifting and serves a valuable purpose.
As a working actor that makes less than 17,000 (Gross in 2008 thus far with 2,300 being residuals.), I am all for authorizing a strike vote. I am not some jack-hole who calls himself an actor that does a side job to pay the bills. I am 100% actor and that is all that I do. Period. It’s a choice I made. For the AMPTP to say that the deal they are offering is “fair” is a tough pill to swallow for any member in SAG to swallow. While the ‘haves’ have most everything (Better deals, better contracts, better roles and are saying “no” to a strike vote.) and the ‘have nots’ (Working actors that have to settle with day player or small guest star roles because of the politics of this business and really have no say in this business.) struggle to get by and suffering for their craft in hopes and working hard in getting their recognition, the deal offered and is continually struck down by SAG, must send a message to management. While some working actors such as myself have the same level of ability as the ‘haves’ but don’t have “name” and would like a little bite of the pay and profit pie, the SAG contract counteroffer is for us, the little actor. The chasm is widening between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ and soon there will only be “stars” and extras. The “names” will have their deals to live off of regardless and that’s just the way the game is played. I am in this business by choice and would like to stay in it as an actor. If there is actually a work stoppage, I would be in a very serious hurt locker and actually have to try and find a j – o – b. Much like everyone else. But, now is the time. Even with the economy being in the dumper the way it is now. Thanks in no part by the same level of greed and manipulation displayed by management. The deals accepted by the other guilds and IATSI were good for them (Even though they don’t like the terms, they are working. SAG was there in support I might add.), the deal SAG wants is good for all. The “names” will say what they say because they have the luxury. “Joe The Actor” doesn’t really have a say in this except when it comes time to vote “Yes” or “No”. The deal is for the future of all actors. New and old.
Something occurred to me while reading this newest “development”. (Yeah, I know it’s digging up an old, tired story but bear with me…)
Remember accredited voting? That soapbox upon which Unite For Strength was formed (and is now a defunct, but smoldering idea) which argued that a SAG member making below a certain amount of money be barred from voting with the SAG ranks. Yeah, a bad idea – but I can see why it was conceived. Why should people who have no dog in the hunt get to vote on the hunt?
So take that idea even further to the next level.
I figure that on the other end of that $ income spectrum should rest these millionaires (both pro and con). Y’see, they really don’t have any dog in this hunt either. They negotiate their own deals with producers, and without regard for the scale players upon whose shoulders this contract weighs.
So how ’bout this: any SAG member who makes more than $500K/year is blocked from voting in this referendum, since this new contract doesn’t apply to them anyway.
Yes, I’m being facetious. But you see my point? Piping in and “signing” their name to a list of other millionaire actors is ridiculous when you consider that what they’re really saying is, “What scale actors make isn’t important to me. My union isn’t important to me anymore – I’m a star now. That $60M AMPTP owes SAG ain’t my money, so I don’t care! I’m a millionaire! Everybody should just get back to work! Now, where is my reserved parking space at Warners? And tell my studio-paid assistant that I want that latte extra hot, dammit!“
For me this isn’t about “rolling over.” This isn’t even about a bad economy.
This is about actually putting a coherent strategy together. Something we clearly don’t have now.
I’m afraid that some people are living in a dreamworld here. They seem to think that by authorizing a strike the clouds will part and they’ll finally recieve all the concessions they’ve always demanded without losing anything in return.
These same people seem not to acknowledge all the money most below-the-line actors will lose in the strike itself. There is no way possible that any residual one might recieve from the internet will make up for the lost income actors will incur from a strike. We all come out losers, either way.
Simply put, it’s a fool’s gamble.
I read people write about “self-interest.” As in: the “self-interest” of the A-List actors versus the “self-interest” of the below-the-line actors, or some nonsense like that.
But, it’ll take years to come back from a prolonged strike, and we’ll all end up with less financially — A-List or not — than we had before, with or without new media platforms included. So where exactly is the “self-interest” in that for anyone? Who plots a strategy where you knowingly will recieve less recompense whatever you do?
The “yes” side is inherently stupid for this reason. I’m sorry, but it is. There is absolutely nothing to be gained here for actors by striking.
Thus, waiting three years makes more sense for one simple reason: we’ll have the opportunity to prepare a more coherent strategy to ultimately get what we want — WITHOUT losing personal income in the process. We can work together with the other unions, we can study the actual success of the new media platforms, and we’ll be in a better position three years from now to make these arguments.
I can not understand SAG’s haste here.
We’ll actually come away with more financially by waiting then we would by going on strike now. I*t’s the better proposition for us. Unfortunately, SAG leaders can’t seem to see that far ahead.
That, in my opinion, would be in everyone’s self-interest.
Too many people here are playing too loosely with other peoples lives in order to gain too little. I find that extremely disturbing.
I urge all fellow actors to vote against this silly, and self-destructive, proposition.
Vote NO to a strike.
Who is this James Brock? I like him. I like him because he’s absolutely right about the inability of SAG to “see that far ahead”.
It’s hard to criticize your own leaders, but in this case it’s harder not to. They failed, y’all. It happens.
But to then take this failure and double down on it, to hand all the ultimate tools to folks who, despite their best intentions, have proven to be unable to make ANY deal AT ALL…to risk the incomes of not only our own, but all the others who support us…
Uh…isn’t this the definition of insanity? Or at least hysterical blindness?
How much do ya’ wanna bet the “No” group will cross picket lines to continue to get their nice fat paychecks?
They’re making lots of money so what do they care about residuals?
In watching all the in-fighting and divisiveness within SAG, I have to imagine the AMPTP folks chortling their way through the current debates as their “divide and conquer” strategy seems to be working.
Here’s my 45 cents worth of observation.
First – I completely support what SAG leadership is asking for. Just as with the WGA contract a year ago, it all comes down to (or should come down to) “when the studios make money, SAG members make money.” These cries of poverty from the studios just don’t wash.
That having been said, when it comes to closing a viable contract, it’s all about LEVERAGE. A strike threat will only give SAG leverage as long as:
A) they know they have much more than the 75% majority needed for a strike authorization among their members
B) Like the WGA with its 90% strike authorization support, the general membership needs to be willing to endure a prolonged strike in order to be taken seriously by the AMPTP
C) SAG leadership can secure the active support of their fellow guilds/unions, the advertising community and the general public as to the moral righteousness of their cause
The stronger those three factors are, the more leverage SAG will have with the AMPTP to motivate concessions and true negotiations. My fear is that with so much divisiveness within SAG, do they even have enough support to get the bare minimum 75% approval. Because if they go through with the strike authorization vote and lose, all leverage goes down the toilet and the members are screwed.
And let’s remember that the double whammy of last year’s WGA strike and the crappy economy is going to affect the support (or lack thereof) of the IA rank and file members, not to mention all those companies whose survival is based on industry contracts like delivery companies, craft services, etc. Just as during the WGA strike, there WILL be pressure from these groups to settle and, just like during the WGA strike, the union is likely to be a stronger target than the AMPTP, even though the latter organization is much more responsible for this stalemate than SAG.
Although tabling key issues until 2011 is very risky since precedents will already be set with the current contract, personally I’d focus on keeping the town working for now and begin laying the groundwork for major changes in the 2011 contract by educating and energizing the general membership about the issues and creating a unified front for 2011 not only within SAG, but also with AFTRA, the WGA and the DGA so that all of the talent unions work together to create a seismic shift in management/labor power with the next contract.
The AMPTP’s Divide and Conquer strategy has proven to be very effective with SAG. But a truly united SAG in concert with a united AFTRA, WGA and DGA would be unstoppable.
Just one observer’s semi-humble opinion…
Ace:
My apologies for only posting when I want to smack you, and not the significant majority of the time I agree with you. Mea culpa.
We need the stars in SAG. They absolutely don’t need us. The day stars break rank from SAG is the day SAG is over. Done. Gone. Destroyed. Stick a fork in us. So bless the Alec Baldwins of the world who are strongly against striking, but will hold the line with us if we do.
But I find the “no dog in the hunt” contrary to math. In addition to the zillions Will Smith earned for “I Am Legend,” he will also get exactly 10x the SAG residuals I make off Legend. “No dogs in the hunt?” Well, according to the math of residuals, the dude has 10 dogs in the residual hunt for every one of mine. It’s the call of Will and those like him whether that amount of money is meaningful to him: Not ours. Because the simple math in regard to film is that stars’ residuals will almost always surpass the SAG-contract entitled residuals each of the rest of us makes, and almost always to a large degree.
So yes, you said your point about excluding mega-earners was fascetious. Got it. But IMHO, us showing anything but the deepest gratitude for every star who would honor a strike and not go fi-core on us is a truly bad move.
I couldn’t care less about qualified voting. Bring it on. I’ll qualify every freakin’ year. And god forbid I don’t some year, that’s my problem. But right now, as you know, it’s every paid up member = one vote. I’m cool with that, and unless we start kicking sleeping stars on the matter, they are too. So all the stars combined power to vote on strike authorization is less than the extras on a single Will Farrel movie. Remember what Alec Baldwin posted about “beware” of treating stars like they don’t understand our concerns, or they don’t care about us. Because if our attitude toward them ever creates that reality, and stars break rank, the Screen Actors Guild will be no more. I did not understand or care for Alec saying “beware,” but upon seeing your post the tiny little light above my head came on.
Bless ‘em, and bless the system where our vote counts as much as those who could crush our car with the money they make in SAG residuals, regardless of whatever additional millions they earn per project.
Dude, they DO care, and that’s demonstrated by the fact that they don’t break rank. I assure you that if any box office opener agreed to shoot during the strike, producers would fill ALL other cast spots with non-union or scabs and get the cameras moving ASAP. The fact that they don’t is incredible, and we owe them for that.
So to every star who’s strongly against striking, but will not report to work if the membership at large authorizes it and the board feels there’s no choice but to call it … THANK YOU!!!
When did Tom Hanks lose his soul and become a douchebag? Don’t have to ask about Clooney. It was March 5 2005.
Joe,
17K? That’s less than my bar tab at the club. You need to give it up my friend. Seriously.
i’ll bet james brock is an AMPTP chump paid to do some posting.
move over is already happening.
the moguls have gone public with their intentions to do away with
residuals.
if residuals are diminished that will impact pension and welfare.
3 years could do alot of damage.
vote yes.
To any of the actors/stars/producers who signed onto the “nosagstrike” letter — I hope you guys read the following facts about the Final Offer:
By encouraging a No vote on the referendum, you are suggesting that you, a Union actor, will vote 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.)
Danny and Rhea have suggested that in three years all the Guild contracts will be up at roughly the same time. Not true. The Amptp does not agree to Guild contracts being co-terminus. SAG is already a year away from WGA; they made their deal in early 08. We are almost into early ‘09. Nothing says that our agreement will be retroactive. WGA didn’t get it.
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.
You guys will be able to make your upfront money, while middleclass, supporting actors with whom you work will fall away, because our life-line, residuals, will no longer be there. This is the truth of what this deal is. If you 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?
his collective bargaining agreement deals with minimums – something that middle class actors are now getting paid – scale, and scale + 10%. Yep, your supporting players are offered entry level wages, even if they have been in the business for 30 years, as I have.
I am mystified as to why you are not standing with your Guild. I know you must remember your first residual check. Your first job above scale. Being 6th on the callsheet. Moving up the ladder. Your first job playing opposite a big star. Moving from a Honeywagon to a TwoBanger. Getting your first “offer” – not having to audition. Being 2nd on the callsheet, then first. Getting your first nomination. Negotiating bumps for nominations. Negotiating more upfront money instead of backend. Standing in the Winner’s Circle. There are thousands of your fellows who look up to you, admire what you do, hoping for the lucky break that you got.
You stood with the WGA when they were on strike, please stand with the actors you work with every day.
Send the elevator back down, please.
Please go to http://www.sag.org and get the facts. They’re all there.
Kudos to Frances Fisher
Again, she puts it out there in detail, minus the rhetoric, the name calling, the distortions, etc. (unlike me. I’m a big fan of name calling).
You read it, and at least I feel as I felt last Monday night in NY after Doug Allen finished his power point opening remarks and I turned to the woman next to me and said “why exactly are we here?”
The choice is crystal clear if you remove the anti-strike authorization “statements of the obvious.” As valid and heartfelt as “a strike would be devastating” arguments are, they, in my mind at least, are completely trumped by what’s coming if SAG actors don’t vote up a strike authorization.
If producers, when confronted with, that still flip us the bird, then, we gotta do what we gotta do. Nobody is “pro-strike.” It’s a fake argument by the “vote ‘no’ on the strike authorization” people, and by the “stars” who should be ashamed of themselves for signing the “vote ‘no’ list.”
Their behavior and uninformed stance is in direct opposition to the critical needs of their so-called “union brothers and sisters,” and their blaming of Alan Rosenberg and Doug Allen for “failure of leadership” or “incompetence” is ignorant of the facts of how we got here and how little, in fact, it had to do with either man.
It had, and has, EVERYTHING to do with the fact the AMPTP never negotiated in good faith with SAG, they never intended to going in, they never wanted to during those long gaps between meetings with the AMPTP, and they surely don’t now. The only thing the producers are waiting for, is to see if SAG actors have the balls to call their bluff and vote up the strike authorization.
THEN, the AMPTP has a very, very, dicey decision to make. A strike will devastate them, and they know it. As bad as it will be for us, it will be just as bad, or worse, for them.
Do I want to walk around in a fucking circle in NY city in February? Fuck no. But, if you have the common sense to understand that, if we don’t get these protections now, we are NEVER getting them, then you better be ready to walk.
I notice all the YES people still can’t do anything except insult people who disagree with them.
The best thing blivit can come up with in response to some very serious points is to call me a “chump,” and then accuse me of being a shill for the AMPTP? Honestly? Is this guy in high school or something? Alright. Keep that up. Let’s see how far that gets you. About as far as you have already gotten, I assume. Weren’t you the one complaining on another thread about NO people being beligerent? Contradict yourself much?
That’s why this vote will not pass ultimately, because too many YES people aren’t listening to anyone else. It’s the same people saying the same thing. They don’t seem to realize that they comprise a minority. A vocal one, but a minority just the same. There are entirely valid points that they just refuse to answer, take into account or even simply acknowledge. They’ve created this echo chamber and refuse to accept any opinion which differs from their own. The numbers AREN’T THERE and, in the end, we’ll be in a worse position than we are now. The only people who support this are the “Membership First” crowd. So unless you believe that “Membership First” comprises 75% of the membership — which they certainly do not — then you have to admit that this resolution is going down to a crushing defeat. What is left of our bargaining powers will be in tatters and we’ll be at the mercy of AMPTP.
Strategy matters to everyone except SAG. We have a bunch of school-yard thugs running things.
These people running SAG are the most self-destructive people I have ever seen. It’s too bad that they are hell bent on bringing everyone else down with them.
Vote NO, change our negotiating team and let’s get a real contract in 2011.
It’s our only hope.
I agree with James Brock.
“The “yes” side is inherently stupid for this reason”
Let’s just agree that there’s a lot of “pot calling the kettle black” here, O.K. “James Brock?”
You go off on blivit, but when I look at your post he was responding to, I find you calling all voting “yes” “stupid.”
So, please can it on:
“I notice all the YES people still can’t do anything except insult people who disagree with them.”
I notice you’re a hypocritical asshole.
So, let’s call the “insult” thing a draw, shall we?
Tensions are high feelings are raw – get over it.
—————————-
Let me answer a few of your “very serious points” O.K.?
“I’m afraid that some people are living in a dreamworld here. They seem to think that by authorizing a strike the clouds will part and they’ll finally receive all the concessions they’ve always demanded without losing anything in return.”
This isn’t exactly a substantive observation, but I would respond by saying, you seriously misunderstand the “yes” sentiment. The “yes” people are voting for ONE thing and ONE thing only: a strike AUTHORIZATION. That gives our negotiators the power to confront the AMPTP with the ACTUAL threat of a strike. IF the AMPTP has, in fact, any internal wiggle-room, or disagreement behind the scenes as to whether they are all IN FACT unified in allowing SAG to strike, this is the ONLY way to find that out.
Of course, if they don’t, the final decision goes back to the national board which is no longer controlled by Membership First. If they say, strike, we strike.
————————————
“These same people seem not to acknowledge all the money most below-the-line actors will lose in the strike itself. There is no way possible that any residual one might receive from the internet will make up for the lost income actors will incur from a strike. We all come out losers, either way.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “below the line” actors. That’s a term applied to crew (below the line) but, nonetheless, this is not about the next six months, it’s about the next 30 years. Any residuals lost due to a work stoppage, would have to originate from jobs you can’t book, because we’re on strike, and there are no SAG auditions for TV/Theatrical jobs.
However, if we sign this contract, what’s already happening in terms of losing residuals, will intensify, and, soon enough, residuals will no longer exist for SAG actors in TV/Theatrical jobs.
THAT loss FAR outweighs any short term loss of work DURING an actual strike.
Again – a NOW example: I spoke to a woman a few days ago whose husband is a regular on the NBC hour drama “Life.” NBC has not run a SINGLE rerun of “Life” on the network – ever. ALL have run on the net. So, do the math:$3,300 vs. Zero in residuals. He gets his weekly salary, but no residual. That’s an example of how RIGHT NOW the producers are just beginning to extensively cut the compensation to middle-class actors.
It’s already happening NOW. Signing this contract will make it precedent for the first time, and permanent.
————————————-
“There is absolutely nothing to be gained here for actors by striking.”
————————————
Well, that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what’s at stake. Residuals are being phased out and this contract will make that permanent. That’s what’s at stake.
———————————–
“Thus, waiting three years makes more sense for one simple reason: we’ll have the opportunity to prepare a more coherent strategy to ultimately get what we want — WITHOUT losing personal income in the process. We can work together with the other unions, we can study the actual success of the new media platforms, and we’ll be in a better position three years from now to make these arguments.”
———————————-
This, of course, depends on if you actually believe the AMPTP will “revisit” or “renegotiate” in three years.
What SAG is asking for is entirely fair, and simple. It is now – it will be in three years. It will be in thirty years.
A percentage formula:
producer makes 100 million on new media project? SAG gets X%
producer makes 100 DOLLARS on new media project? SAG gets EXACT SAME x%
producer LOSES money on new media project? producer has NO FIXED obligation to SAG
That, of course, allows producers all the “flexibility” to “experiment” they need. The reason they won’t consider such an easy solution is:
A. they have no intention of including actors in new media residuals
B. They have no intention of opening themselves up to the transparency a percentage of distributor’s gross formula, such as above, would require. There would be verifiable “hits” and both sides could follow the money. The AMPTP would be forced to do business in an honest manner. This terrifies them for the simple reason that they have no experience with that business model (honesty)
————-
If, in fact, your name is “James Brock” – my guess is (name true or not) you are quite young. Lucky you. but here’s the deal James: this require long-term thinking, and, since there is NO precedent for the AMPTP “revisiting” or “renegotiating” once they get such a huge concession in writing, and beginning to milk that profit stream for all it’s worth – if we fail to nail down this contract with SAG hard-wired into their profit stream in ALL new media, SAG as a union that effectively represents the needs of middle-class actors, not just “stars” (about… 5% of the union? Probably closer to 3%) will be over.
Think it over, and, in my humble opinion, if you want a future as an actor, you may have to go through a tough time the next year or so, but if you WANT ANY future, vote “YES.”
Mr. Brock -
The make-up of SAG’s negotiating team is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to the current status of the negotiations, as the other side – the moguls – have essentially refused to negotiate.
Changing the personnel sitting in the chairs opposite the moguls will do absolutely nothing to change that.
Putting off this fight for three years would put SAG in the even-less-enviable position of having already acceded to the AMPTP’s “well-established framework” this year. That framework is what the moguls will work with over the next two decades or more as they migrate their content distribution to the Internet as quickly as they possibly can, and deny SAG and the other creative guilds a residual structure even close to what they’ve been paying on old media.
The moguls have drawn the line in the sand THIS YEAR. They are demanding HUGE rollbacks from actors, not just on this contract, but over the next two decades or more. We don’t have the luxury of having this fight three years from now. The fight will be over, and we will have lost. And what we will have lost is our creative guild as a force of good in our industry and a bulwark of protection for actors.
The AMPTP has put SAG’s back to the wall and a gun to the temple of the actors. The only thing the AMPTP respects is force. We have to force them to come around, first by giving SAG leadership the tool of a credible threat to withdraw our labor through a strike authorization. If that’s not enough to get them to take us seriously, we need to pick up our picket signs.
SAG leadership has been calm, professional, and patient to the point of long-suffering throughout this entire extended process. The current impasse was engineered by and is the conscious choice of the other side. So far, we actors have been carrying a pen knife to a gunfight. It’s time to give President Rosenberg some real weaponry to carry into the battle.
James Brock and like thinkers:
Per your words, if strike authorization doesn’t pass, “then you have to admit that this resolution is going down to a crushing defeat. What is left of our bargaining powers will be in tatters and we’ll be at the mercy of AMPTP.”
Look. Strike authorization ballot is going to go out. And I personally fail to know how to reach anybody who believes that a 26% no vote will equal “tattered bargaining power” and leave us at the mercy of the AMPTP, so they then plan on voting no(!!!). WTF?!
Me personally? I’ve listened, and I have yet to hear the factual basis is for believing 1) we’d be stronger in 2011; 2) the economy would be better in 2011; 3) Why it matters at all if the economy is better, since strike strength is calculated by potential damage of one side holding out versus the other; 4) Exactly how it is we can even get NY SAG and LA SAG together in three years, let alone the WGA, the DGA, or anybody else.
We’ve tried for 22 years, through various administrations of varying political philosophies to do anything but suck dirt on DVD residuals, after putting our mouth on the dirt pile in the first place. That strategy proved to be disasterous. So I’ll listen with open ears just as somebody explains to me the actual factual basis of a blind hope that somehow we’re going to repeat the same act with new media expecting a different result, and somehow how that’s going to work out for us.
An unmet need to hear well-reasoned analysis based on historical precedent should simply not be confused with “not listening.” Sorry. We tried the “suck dirt now, and make it back later” approach and got reemed. Blind faith is no substitute for the factual rationale of believing doing the same thing this time won’t yield exactly the same result.
Like you, I believe the results of a “no” vote are pretty nasty too. That’s why I will vote “yes.” The only thing I plan on voting “no” on is IF this current “take this offer and shove it” contract is put up. If we let the bell ring as outlined in Frances’ bullet points, there’s no historical precedent in our union of which I’m aware which would suggest we can unring it later.
Well, “Matt Mulhern,” (if that’s you real name), I am entitled to my opinion just as you are entitled to yours. Okay, “Matt Mulhern”?
Again, we get the same three to four people come out and attack someone for doing nothing more than disagree with them. I must have a lot of nerve to disagree with the great “Matt Mulhern,” (if that’s even your real name).
When all is said and done “Matt Mulhern,” don’t forget that you need 75% support to even get a strike authorization passed. I know of no one outside the “Membership First” kabal, and its usual list of supporters, who are in favor of this. I guarantee you you don’t have the support of 75% of the union as a whole. When you fail, and you will, you will have nothing left to bargain with. It’ll be over. Ultimately, your failure will reflect on all of us and put the rest of us in an even worse position.
The problem is, and always has been, that I see you and your friends doing a lot of preaching to the choir and needless villification of the non-believers, “Matt Mulhern,” but I don’t see too much convincing going on. I see even less listening going on. You just can’t seem to accept that there are valid reasons to be against a strike. It doesn’t make people disloyal or evil.
Just keep that in mind.
I’ll leave you now to play with the rest of your friends, “Matt Mulhern,” (if that’s your real name).
P.S. When I wrote that the yes side was “inherently stupid,” which I still believe, I was not speaking of people who support the yes side being stupid. I was writing about the position of supporting a strike given that it’s a lose-lose situation for us, a fool’s bargain.
P.P.S. I suppose I must have touched a nerve to attract so much attention to poor little James Brock by all the regulars here, and yes that is my real name.
Vote NO.
I agree with every argument made so far as to why the current AMPTP contract offer is crappy and how important the issues are.
But the real issue here is the balance of power and leverage. Because the only thing the AMPTP seems to understand is power and they’re determined to strengthen theirs.
If SAG is to prevail, they need to demonstrate a committed, united front combined with broad support from not only other industry guilds and unions, as well as the advertising community, Wall Street and the general public – much the way the WGA operated a year ago.
My concern is whether or not SAG leadership truly has that breadth and depth of committed support to give them the leverage needed to strike something even close to a fair deal. If the strike authorization vote fails, what leverage does SAG have?
So again, I’m not looking at this from the point of what’s right and fair. That’s a given and SAG has my support to do everything they can to protect their members’ livelihoods now and in the future.
The question is simply – what can SAG leadership do to effectively convince the AMPTP bosses that this present intransigence is counter-productive? Between their 120,000 members, their sister talent guilds, the below the line unions and everyone else involved, can they muster enough support and anti-management anger to give them the leverage they need to make a deal on this contract – or would they be better off with a white flag now “in the interest of getting the industry back to work in this tough economic market” while laying the groundwork for what may become the WWIII of labor disputes in 2011 with across the board industry support and, more importantly, SAG membership unity.
Because, as hard as it is likely to be getting the AMPTP to play ball on these key issues in 2011 will be one way or the other, it will be a lot worse if they have to re-negotiate those issues because they had to eat a bad contract now due to a failed strike authorization vote.
I can cut and paste as well
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.
Witness to Insanity
Reasonable. Wrong, but reasonable…
See, “let’s wait 3 years for World War III” is the part that I don’t get. I mean, it’s simple logic, to me anyway, that, if you go to war, you do it in a methodical, measured way, based upon the support of the people, the evidence at hand, and the issues at stake.
Despite the “don’t send out the SAV,” “Rosenberg is delusional,” “this is insane,” “the economy is in tatters,” zaniness, last time I checked, Rosenberg and Allen were following the votes of the membership, the national board and the negotiating committee.
Can anyone say different? Not if they’re being honest. All this shrieking and wobbling, and, for what? Just send out the damn SAV, as was approved by the national board and the negotiating committee’s votes.
If it passes, it passes. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t.
Let’s get on with it.
—————-
And “James Brock” “if that’s YOU real name”
Yes, I am me. You’re welcome to your opinion, as I am to mine, “James Brock.”
james brock wins again! clear thinking, logical and only debating the issues not the personalities wins every time as james proves again.
so strike if you must, because there will be no network tv for sag members any longer. which means no residuals, which means no more health care. ALL new shows will be AFTRA-it has already been decided and some but not all features will go AFTRA as well. I’ve been in the studio meetings and the die is cast. Sure go ahead and strike. The btl crews will continue to work, writers will write, directors will direct and actors will act. It just won’t be with SAG. The public wont know the difference. No one will say, ” hmmm looks like an aftra show”. No they will just watch it just like they always have. Then years from now you can opine bitterly about how the amptp broke sag and how you had to join aftra to book a gig. You can abscond from any and all responsibility on sags leadership, but it won’t matter because that union doesn’t exist anymore.
Matt,
I think you and I may be more in sync than your subject line would suggest.
You wrote, “it’s simple logic, to me anyway, that, if you go to war, you do it in a methodical, measured way, based upon the support of the people, the evidence at hand, and the issues at stake.”
This is exactly my point. Calling a strike is a declaration of war. To win that war, SAG leadership needs mucho leverage including “the support of the people”.
Personally I hope Rosenberg and Allen get a 90% approval from the membership similar to the WGA’s strike authorization. And I hope, if they get it, that their membership has the fortitude to stick out what is likely to be a lengthy walkout because we already know how inflexible Nick Counter and his colleagues are in the key issues.
My question remains, do they have the across the board support needed to both authorize and then stick out a prolonged strike in this time of economic upheaval? If they do, great!
The issues are critical and important to fight for. But if they don’t have that leverage and support, as I’ve said repeatedly in this thread, they could well be screwing themselves by calling for an SAV.
My buddy and I have had an employment deal pending with a studio for over a year. But because of first the WGA strike and now SAG, that job offer continues to be on hold and my friend and I continue to search for alternate employment until the contract is finally settled. And still I support and applaud the members of both guilds for standing up for issues well worth fighting for, even if it means going on strike.
Because I’m rooting for SAG to ultimately prevail, like the scene in “The Godfather” where Michael Corleone is about to shoot Solazzo and the corrupt police captain, I want to know that SAG leadership can come out “with more than just their dicks in their hands.”
’nuff said
james brock wins again! clear thinking, logical and only debating the issues not the personalities wins every time as james proves again.
so strike if you must, because there will be no network tv for sag members any longer. which means no residuals, which means no more health care. ALL new shows will be AFTRA-it has already been decided and some but not all features will go AFTRA as well. I’ve been in the studio meetings and the die is cast. Sure go ahead and strike. The btl crews will continue to work, writers will write, directors will direct and actors will act. It just won’t be with SAG. The public wont know the difference. No one will say, ” hmmm looks like an aftra show”. No they will just watch it just like they always have. Then years from now you can opine bitterly about how the amptp broke sag and how you had to join aftra to book a gig. You can abscond from any and all responsibility on sags leadership, but it won’t matter because that union doesn’t exist anymore.
Thanks for a great article, Nikki.
So many actors I’ve spoken with don’t have clue about the union contract.
They really need to get boned up instead of listening to producer Tom Hanks (who says he’s an actor).
The studios tricked the actors the first with lousy DVD residuals and now they want to trick them again with lousy Movie Downloads (which is a very powerful commodity).
I also hope SAG gets 90% on the vote because then it won’t be Alan Rosenberg and Doug Allen taking us out on strike, It will be NY and the Branch’s along with the 5 USF members that will, as they are the ones who now control the National Board. No wonder they are trying so hard to stop the vote in the first place.
For those who don’t remember who USF are, they were the ones behind the attempt to take away the right to vote from thier fellow members.
I understand the shortcomings of the last best offer. I understand SAGs interpretation of the contract as a compact to diminish the union. I know what’s at stake and I understand all the reasons Rosenberg et al believe they need the authorization. But no one has offered an idea of how a strike will achieve a betterment of terms. No one has talked about how long we may need to strike. Obviously AR and DA have thought about this scenario and likely have very definite ideas about the practical aspects of calling a strike and enduring one. Do they see a strike as inevitable? Do they believe a strike will force the AMPTP into sweetening the deal? Why? How long could that take? How long are we willing to stick it out? They’ve studied labor disputes carefully. They offered some of this analysis when they addressed managers and agents so I assume they’ve got some ballpark figure in mind when they contemplate the very real possibility of striking.
They’d probably consider these questions premature since they claim only to be seeking authorization at this point. But if they get it and the AMPTP doesn’t flinch, then what? Do they believe that authorization gives SAG meaningful leverage to lure the AMPTP back to the table? Does anyone? I think a yes vote for authorization is a yes vote to strike and as a member, I’d like to hear some discussion about this before members are asked to vote on authorization.
Unfortunately the vote “NO” list has no way to verify names. C’mon Nikki why post a link to this bogus list after you took down the other bogus list.
Well, you do have to check a box that says “I am a SAG member.”
Have at it folks. Sign up with your fake names–or better use the names of an actual actor . I just signed on as GARY SINESE. Let’s see how quick it goes up.
The vote “YES” list requires your SAG member number so perhaps they are doing cross checking on that side. I’m going back to “NO” and I’ll add the names of some actors who have passed on. “Bury me in Jersey City, I want to remain active in politics.”
cj writes, “I’d like to hear some discussion about this before members are asked to vote on authorization.”
One way to get more info. would be to attend SAG informational meetings. The questions you ask are relevant, but it’s not in the best interest of the Guild to publicly publish their stats as far as we are ready to strike but only for 60 days then we’ll call it quits.
That give the adversary too much information. It’s a shame but the negotiations for any contract, by a union or even an individual in a job interview are something of a card game. In a perfect world we could say $X is fair and the AMPTP would say “You’re right.”
Instead the AMPTP says FU we’re cutting your pay in half by eliminating residuals. SAG can either say OK or get a strike vote. An individual can say I doubled the profits of this company in a year, I need a raise or I’m gonna have to find other employment.
Will they get the raise or not? Well you can’t know till you ask. Then the scenario plays out.
There is some strike info up on sites like Sag.org and on youtube. But it is more what the contract means to actors rather than what negotiating strategy SAG has in mind.
Well, cj, the discussion on the authorization vote has been going on for months – you seem new to the party. You have a lot of pertinent questions, for most of which there are no answers because nobody knows – it hasn’t run its course yet.
But before we get to an actual strike, you (and all SAG members) need to completely understand that it’s the authorization to call a strike that is our leverage – which is what we’ll be voting on.
Passing a strike authorization is a two-tiered leverage “weapon”.
The first step is letting the moguls know that we have the power to strike if they continue to stonewall us with this obscene offer. If they stand quietly in the corner and refuse to bargain with us, then our NegCom (negotiating committee) must make the decision to enact stage two of the weapon – the strike itself. Which nobody wants to occur, and which would not be automatically enacted. The NegCom has to discuss it first and decide, based on the situation at the time, how and when to strike.
This is what the AMPTP fears most – that they’ll have to either deal fairly with us (which is easy, cost-effective and simply the right thing to do) or force us into a work stoppage, which would be on their hands, not SAG’s.
None of us, save for the AMPTP itself, knows if a strike authorization will get them to discard this POS contract offer and do the right thing, or if they’ll choose to continue playing brinkmanship and daring us to do what we must.
They say that it won’t matter – that passing a strike authorization won’t change their offer. But what they say and what they do are turning out to be two very different things. The AMPTP bluffing (some call it outright “lying”) about their position is transparent when you look at all of the money they’re spending to sway the authorization vote in their favor.
Many of us who are voting ‘Yes’ feel that with the leverage of a strike authorization, the moguls will have no other rational choice than to deal with SAG in a fair way – no matter what they say now. And remember that “truthful” isn’t in their vocabulary. This is all just business decisions to them, hoping to increase their fat bottom line profits by not paying SAG what we’re due.
Your best information will come from SAG.org. Look to your elected leaders for the truth of what the AMPTP is attempting to do to us. I urge you and all SAG members to invest some real time and look at both sides of this very important issue before voting. Your future as a working actor depends on it.
In solidarity,
SAG has to start convincing people who aren’t part of their usual list of MF supporters. That is your achilles heel here. You have to start listening to what others are saying, even those who disagree with you. You need to consider their position carefully and appreciate the fact that these feelings are prevelant among many SAG members. What you do instead, is revert to talking points, insults and innuendos. There are plenty of people inside this union who don’t agree with this decision, and worse, who don’t trust the people in charge of leading them into a strike. That’s something you just have to deal with.
I think the most honest response so far came from ‘Justice and Fair Play’ who said that most of the actor friends s/he has don’t even know what’s in the contract.
Do you honestly think these people are going to vote to authorize a strike now and put any chance of work in peril? How about the New York faction, and its members, will they vote yes? How about all the other non-Hollywood SAG members, are you convincing them? How about the Unite For Strength members, on what side will they come out on?
Given the propensity of Membership First types to talk down to those who disagree with them and just disregard their opinions outright, I seriously doubt that 50% of SAG support this, much less 75%.
After all, don’t forget that we held an election just two months ago where the Unite For Strength faction convincingly defeated Membership First and took a majority of the seats on the board.
I seriously doubt those same UFS supporters have suddenly had a change of heart about MF and have decided to now follow them into a prolonged strike. It’s foolish, at best, to think so.
Unfortunately, people here like Matt Mulhern, Ace, Justine Bateman and the rest of them can’t see the forest from the trees and create a false dichotomy for everyone. I support the aims SAG has presented here, as i’m sure most do, but I seriously doubt they have the support (within the industry, the public or even among actors themselves) to go man-to-man with the producers/studios here. Ultimately, this is why they are destined to fail. Understand this, a strike is not an end in it of itself, it is a means to an end. I don’t think these people have any clue what they will do once they go on strike. I think they only hope that the other side will cave. Failing that, well, SAG will be forced into a massive and humiliating retreat and its members will recieve nothing in return for the sacrifice of giving up their jobs and income for whatever the duration of the strike will be.
This is a redux of Bush with Iraq. You MF supporters won’t admit this, or even like to hear this, but it’s true. He wanted to go to war so badly that he never gave any thought to how to “win” the war once he got what he wanted and look how that turned out.
This is about poor planning. This is about a poor strategy.
In the final analysis, this is all really a tragedy in the classical sense of the word. It’s a tragedy where everyone can see the negative final outcome except the persons involved because they are too close. Most people can see that even if SAG gets what it wants and strikes, it will still lose. The truest tragedy of all is that they’re willing to bring everyone else down with them.
VOTE NO.
Yeah, I just checked with two friends on the “NO”. One said he never gave his name to either side and when I steered him to the link, he said all the principals on his show were listed as signers including himself. He knew he hadn’t signed and said he wouldn’t. He surmised they just took the cast list from the show and printed the name without anyone’s permission. Other friend said he did indeed sign the NO petition because he wants to keep his job on “It’s always Sunny in Philidelphia.”. In other names at a glance I saw William Mapother is on both the YES and NO list. B-O-G-U-S!
zackery wrote: Other friend said he did indeed sign the NO petition because he wants to keep his job on “It’s always Sunny in Philidelphia.”.
Your friend should reread his contract. Sunny is a AFTRA show.
Ace, yes, the discussion on the authorization has been going on for months and I don’t need to be further edified as to what’s at stake or how a strike authorization will be wielded. The fact that you “feel” a strike authorization vote will leave the AMPTP, “no other rational choice than to deal with SAG in a fair way”, is not relevant. What are you basing this feeling on? Just because you interpret the AMPTPs efforts to sway the authorization vote as an indication that they’re bluffing does not make it so. Why exactly, other than your feelings about it, do you think authorization will give us leverage? And do you personally believe that AR and DA truly expect authorization to have an effect? I haven’t heard anyone explain HOW or WHY authorization is meant to give us leverage other than to hear them tell us simply that it just will. Most of the discussion on SAG.com seems to portray an attitude that we must give authorization, regardless.
If all we’ve got going into this is moral certitude, then I don’t think it’s too much to ask for our leaders to be forthcoming with regards to exactly what we may be in for and how a strike can help us achieve our goals. Telling us we have no other choice is a very weak position.
Yosemite-
Yes, of course AFTRA. I think his point was the show is produced Danny DeVito, a proponent of the NO vote. He’s trying to keep his boss happy thereby keeping his job. My bad. I guess I left out that fact.
No middle class Actor is going to sign the Yes list in fear of retaliation. And as far as the NO side goes — all kissing Butt hoping to get a job. The only true answer will be the results from the SAG membership Voting. So until then we can all wait and see . . .
Danny DeVito isn’t a producer on “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.” It’s just a straight acting job.
Hey, cj,
As I stated in my earlier comment, nobody knows what’s going to happen, nor do I know what the AMPTP is prepared to do under either circumstance (pass or fail of the authorization). Only they do. Nothing is absolute.
People voting ‘No’ feel that SAG does not, nor will not have the leverage it needs to make the AMPTP come to its senses (mostly because the AMPTP said so). Otherwise, of course, they would be voting ‘Yes’.
What I personally feel is based on how I (and many other SAG members) see the predicament we’re in and what is the best (only?) play for us right now under these circumstances? And that feeling is absolutely relevant because it’s based in fact and the AMPTP’s track record; not emotion, not spin, not external considerations and not fear tactics from their “Vote No” campaign. And it’s relevant because every SAG member is going to vote how they feel based on those same facts and circumstances as well.
Much more to the point, my feeling is based on confidence in my elected board and negotiating committee and their recommendations. It’s not blind support, blind loyalty or blind solidarity – it’s about the professionals in the game (not SAG members, not other industry workers – pro or con) who know more than I, or you, or any of us, know. I’ll take that advice any day over the “advice” of our opposition, the AMPTP.
To your specific question, “Why exactly, other than your feelings about it, do you think authorization will give us leverage?” Because I look at it from the opposition’s point of view as well as SAG’s.
I’ll explain…
First of all, the only leverage any union ever has, in any contract negotiations, is a [threat of] strike (labor action). Same with any of the entertainment guilds. Management is well aware of this also, no matter that they claim it’s irrelevant – those claims are false. Threat of a strike is a huge consideration for management. Every time.
Since I’m a SAG member, and based on the above fact, I think it much more prudent to believe SAG saying, “Strike authorization will give us leverage,” than believe the AMPTP (uh, the opposition) saying, “Strike authorization won’t give SAG leverage.” Really? Can’t you argue that? Would anyone in SAG (much less the entire film industry) believe anything the AMPTP says publicly?
So if management chooses to be unfair (perceived or factual) in its negotiations, what’s to stop them from holding that unfair offer over labor’s head(s)? Their attitude could be (and is), “Tough shit. What are you gonna do about it, punk?” (Okay, they probably won’t say “punk” but a bully always takes that position – and the AMPTP has been outed as bullies in these negotiations for many reasons.) And labor’s (SAG, in this case) answer is (must be), “We’ll stop working and stall all of your projects, and it will be very costly to you.” Which SAG can do. We have the power to do that.
This brings up the crux of the position we’re in. As simple and basic as it sounds, it all boils down to whether or not SAG members think the AMPTP is bluffing about their “last, final offer”, and whether or not a strike authorization will force them to reconsider their dangerous and costly position.
To wit: “Is the threat of a strike going to matter to the AMPTP?”
Based on all of the above evidence, and with the AMPTP’s scurrying around (with false information) and funding campaigns to sway the vote to ‘No’, I believe SAG has immense leverage with a strike authorization. This fight is still at the bargaining table, no matter what the AMPTP says publicly. Their track record is: lies, unfair bargaining, skewed “details” of their contract offer, union-busting tactics and ripping off other guilds. I don’t give their statements a grain of credibility.
Forgive me if it sounds like I’m trying to school you here. To the contrary, you sound like an intelligent person, and you seem to know what’s going on. But it’s immensely important that the core of this authorization vote isn’t clouded with extraneous issues. This is purely about the leverage provided to our negotiators by the threat of a strike. It’s about loading our only weapon.
Sure, it could all lead to an actual strike – nobody doubts that. Your questions about what an actual strike would do for SAG…? I don’t think anyone has those answers. The scenarios range from excellent to unfavorable. I do know that should a strike occur, SAG would only strike AMPTP companies – not commercials, not Indie feature production and not any other productions/producers who signed completion guarantees with SAG. That’s little comfort in the face of the weight of this decision. But I feel strongly that the strike authorization decision/vote should be more about what we’d lose by signing this deal now (fallout from voting ‘No’) than what we might gain or lose by striking. More to the point, it’s about standing up to the AMPTP now or getting screwed forever.
Before anyone’s decision even gets to considering the economy or the fallout of other people and/or businesses being put out of work, we must all consider this first and separately: if SAG were standing together in 100% solidarity with complete support for our negotiators, do you believe that wall of solidarity would sway the AMPTP? I don’t mean to belittle those other important considerations, but they should not cloud the core of what we’re voting for – and against. Though the current economy is important to all of us, let’s not let the AMPTP spin that economic factor into fear mongering just because they say an authorization won’t matter. Has the AMPTP been honest so far?
Remember that old adage, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself”? Well this authorization vote should be characterized by, “We have no leverage only if we think we have no leverage.” Most actors have heard this axiom also: “If you think you can, or you think you can’t, you’re right.”
Think about it.