Twilight Sequel 'New Moon' #1 Advance Online … 
MPTF: Open Letter To Jeffrey Katzenberg 
'2012' Dominates For $225M 5-Day Launch … 
Showtime Rattled By Rival EPIX Arrival 
4TH UPDATE: MGM Studio Claiming Business As … 
'Paranormal Activity' Crosses $100M Cume: … 
EXCLUSIVE: DISNEY'S BIG JOB SWITCH; CFO Tom … 
Rich Ross Restructures Disney Studios' … 
20 Animated Films Vying For 2009 Oscars 
THE END OF 'OPRAH' AS WE KNOW HER: Daytime … 
Comcast & GE Pact To Keep NBCU Talks … 
Elle's Women In Hollywood Power List 
The strike authorization ballots will go out to SAG's paid-up members, anywhere from 100,000 to 110,000 of the 120,000, on January 2nd. The votes will be tabulated on January 23rd and the results announced the same day. (UPDATED: See just released SAG statement below. And the AMPTP's response below that.) I'm told the decision was made to avoid the holidays and to ensure enough time for informational meetings. Only if 75% of the returned ballots are "yes" votes will SAG leadership be given a strike authorization -- not a strike but an authorization to call a strike without having to go back to members for another vote -- to help leverage the stalled contract negotiations with Big Media's AMPTP. It's less clear what will happen if the "no" votes exceed 25% -- though it could mean no more negotiations and the AMPTP's last offer sent out to members to accept or reject. And if it's rejected, well, SAG and Big Media are back at Square One. Here's SAG's statement:
LOS ANGELES, DECEMBER 10, 2008 -- Screen Actors Guild today announced that strike authorization ballots will be mailed to paid-up SAG members on Friday January 2, 2009, and will be tabulated on Friday, January 23. A yes vote by 75% of members voting is required to pass the measure, which would authorize SAG's national board of directors to call a strike, if and when the board determines it is necessary.
Screen Actors Guild National President Alan Rosenberg said, ”SAG members understand that their futures as professional actors are at stake and I believe that SAG members will evaluate the AMPTP’s June 30 offer, and vote to send us back to the table with the threat of a strike. A yes vote sends a strong message that we are serious about fending off rollbacks and getting what is fair for actors in new media. I am encouraged by the response of the capacity crowd at our Los Angeles town hall meeting Monday night."
”We want SAG members to have time to focus on this critical referendum, so we have decided to mail ballots the day after New Year's. We will continue our comprehensive education campaign and urge our members to vote yes on the strike authorization. I am confident that members around the country will empower our negotiating team with the leverage and strength of unified Screen Actors Guild members. Our objective remains to get a deal that SAG members will ratify- not to go on strike," said SAG National Executive Director and Chief Negotiator, Doug Allen.
Ballots will be tabulated at Integrity Voting Systems in Everett, Washington. Passage requires 75% yes vote from those voting.
Here is the AMPTP response:
It's now official: SAG members are going to be asked to bail out a failed negotiating strategy by going on strike during one of the worst economic crises in history. We hope that working actors will study our contract offer carefully and come to the conclusion that no strike can solve the problems that have been created by SAG's own failed negotiation strategy.
Loading ...
I haven’t seen anti-authorization comments from Amy Brenneman and Ned Vaughn. So far.
I’m convinced they would be urging a No vote.
Maybe they think it would look bad for them, as new office-holders, to speak out against the union in which they command a majority of National Board seats.
So. The Vote No mouthpieces are the once-respected Mike Farrell and the greedy, obnoxious Danny DeVito.
And the second string mouthpieces are Amy Aquino and Arye Gross.
I wonder if Forrest Gump and his Mama will be weighing in soon.
The aristocracy of actors has the corporate media on its side, but they may need some more effective shills to sway 25% of the membership to Vote No.
AT LAST the vote goes to the actual SAG membership, and not its deluded, democratically elected leaders. Please do the right thing and reject this ridiculous strike authorization so we can finally complete our year-long screwing of every labor organization remotely connected with recorded entertainment.
Remember, if you strike over new media we’ll only come up with NEWER media where we STILL don’t have to pay you. So vote this puppy down and let us all get back to our champagne enemas.
Another step in the right direction, taken with concern and consideration for all SAG members; time to learn the facts, time to get home from the holidays and no time wasted counting the ballots. Also nice to know where and how the votes will be tabulated (transparency). Nobody was able to answer that question from me with regards to the AFTRA contract vote. Bravo SAG NegCom!
Even with the negativity on these boards (AMPTP shills or not), I’m very confident that the vote will carry at least an 80% “yes”.
So is the AMPTP (confident of the authorization passing), by the way, which is why they’re working 24/7 to spin that it will lead to certain strike. (And if it does, it will be because the AMPTP didn’t budge on offering a fair contract. And they know any potential strike will be their fault.) Nick Counter’s not gonna like that Strike Authorization letter thrust into his face. At that point, he will have failed to do the job the moguls hired him to do.
So, Merry Christmas, Nick! (or Happy Channukah -sp-, whatever you like). Too bad you won’t get SAG’s holiday card ’til the end of January, but that should give you enough time to finish eating your young ‘uns at home.
Enough of the “How can they strike right now in this economy?” I encourage you to go back and read about when the AFL-CIO, and unions prior to that merger, struck. It was often in more stressful economic times than we are experiencing today. The best time to address the concerns of those in unions is in the worst of times.
Besides, I don’t think you’d have the same feeling if Teacher’s decided to go on strike because their districts weren’t taking into consideration their specific needs.
And for the record, I hate fucking unions.
Urgent must read by Eileen Henry, former SAG ny President:
—–http://www.unitedscreenactors.com/?p=449———-
Very powerful and logical assesment. Please post this NNikki, in all fairness to true education.
I have already lost 99% of my clientele (most in the entertainment industry) due to the writer’s strike. None but a few have returned and they only use my child cars services occasionally. The writer’s strike has bankrupt me and countless others and now ANOTHER INDUSTRY STRIKE DURING OUR HORRIBLE ECONOMY? ARE YOU ALL OUT OF YOUR MINDS????? GEEEEEEEEEEEZZZ…..THERE IS A LIMIT YOU KNOW! IF THE ACTORS STRIKE NOW, IT WILL BE CATASTROPHIC AND WILL NOT ACCOMPLISH A THING EXCEPT ANIMOSITY.
Sincerely,
Califstarheart
A note from the cheap seats:
I am an actor struggling to raise the bar of my career. I only take paying gigs, which means I don’t have acting work 365, and must hold a day job to survive. I am not a SAG member because I can’t seem to ever meet the criteria to get in – criteria that constantly changes and is near-impossible to keep track of (I have yet to even meet a SAG actor who can explain SAG rules to me). I’d be a loyal dues-paying member if only… but no, I’m still after my card – been trying for ten years now. Brick wall. I CANNOT BELIEVE THEY ARE DIM-WITTED ENOUGH TO STRIKE NOW. If SAG actors appreciated paid acting work as much as, say, oh… someone like I do… ??? I’d like to see someone like Vince Vaugh or Tom Hanks take petty orders from a Supermarket Middle-Manager 7.5 hours a day… or Jen Aniston give up her opulent lifestyle to flip burgers part-time. HEY SAG, you won’t let me in… yet I doubt any of you would last 2 consecutive days in MY WORLD. I’m a good actor… that’s what my reviews say anyway… as few and far between as they are… I wouldn’t get hired at all if I got the kind of poor notices you people get on predictable and frequent intervals because you have STEADY ACTING WORK despite 1- and 2-star performances! I wish you could see the acting profession the way us strugglers do – paid acting is a PRIVILEGE. And it is getting harder and harder not to be bitter about the elitism that saturates the upper-levels of my fellow artists.
Dave Clennon,
What an inane comment. Are you suggesting that to oppose a strike and strike authorization that would mean you were against your union?
Personally I think the opposite is true. I think to support this idiotic suicide is to support the death of our union.
To Dave and other members of SAG.
You’ll never get 75%. I doubt you get even 50%.
One more thing: to any SAG members around the country who aren’t interested in the outcome of the authorization vote, please don’t vote ‘no’ just for the hell of it, or to keep up the status quo. If this authorization doesn’t mean anything to you one way or the other then please don’t hobble those of us to whom it means everything.
We’d certainly like you to vote ‘yes’ to support your union’s cause and future, but if you don’t care don’t vote ‘no’.
When the ballots go out, they should inform the members that the name will be changed to Film Actors Guild with a yes vote.
SAG will have some heavy lifting trying to convince me and many of my working NYC SAG members that we should vote “yes”. The uncertainty has already pushed a sizable amount of 2009 pilots to my other union, AFTRA. Doesn’t this leadership realize they’ve played right into the AMPTP’s hands over the last year? They have SAG and AFTRA lowballing each other to secure work — even though most of us are in both unions. It’s just dumb.
We need to vote “no”, then reunite with AFTRA (at least at the bargaining table if not with a merge) and come at this again next time with more strength.
And I can’t wait to see how they word the actual ballot. The last ballot made it seem like you were a spineless turncoat if you didn’t vote the way the leadership was pimping.
Mr. Leland? Mr. Pappione?
Good morning, sirs. How would you like your coffee today?
Which paper would you like to read this morning? We have USA Today, New York Times and LA Times.
Have you checked out that New Media landscape? It’s happening, sirs, it’s happening NOW. Would you like me to download a Charlie Rose show for you this morning?
We have a segment here, where NBC’s Ben Silverman tells Charlie how quickly the network is shifting content to the Internet. It’s happening so fast, sirs. Oh yes, sirs, in a few months, you can disconnect your cable or your satellite dish.
Three years? Oh, I don’t think so, sirs. As soon as I get the money, I’m buying a low-end version of that new TV with the Internet plug-in. I won’t have to watch my soaps while I’m making up your rooms. I’ll be able to sit on my sofa and watch them streaming. I just wish they’d let us fast-forward through the commercials.
Here’s that Charlie Rose episode I was telling you about, sirs.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9554
Now’s the time to vote yes. People need to understand if you curl up in a whole everybody gets hurt down the road.
The battles of the past will be rendered meaningless unless we suck it up and go for it.
It’s Better to get the unemployment before the state runs out of money.By that time the strike will be over.
Support heavy metal music..
Wow. The studio shills are out in force this AM.
AMPTP: “SAG members are going to be asked to bail out a failed negotiating strategy…”
Strategy? We’re demanding a fair contract! The AMPTP sends a press release implying they think it’s a fun game of chess to force our families onto food lines.
These people aren’t human. Fight them with us or we’ll all be pushed around their game board until we live in eternal poverty.
It’s a game to them and to us it’s our livelihood.
These kind of people have nearly bankrupted our banks, and raised our mortgages to force us out of our homes. They have our money and our homes now. Don’t let them take our future.
YES is not the easy choice. It’s the only choice.
So, when the entertainment giants start to go belly-up…
That’s funny Pappione…
Pappione and Leland,
“All of” us are not voting for a – “deciding to” – strike, we are voting to give our negotiators the power (”permission”) to strike if we’re forced to do so.
Our opposition, the AMPTP, is the only body saying that a strike authorization is a sure strike – but they’re the opposition, not SAG (who is doing the voting), and they have a huge financial stake in spinning this information.
Let’s call the strike authorization what it is: “authorization”. It’s a necessary negotiation tool, implemented only when labor has no other choice to secure our present and future income. Sure, it’s possible that SAG will strike with membership’s authorization to do so – but ONLY if the AMPTP continues to bully us into this corner, as they’ve done with AFTRA, IATSE and WGA.
No doubt the vote will carry.
All you AMPTP shills infesting this site can go away now, just tell your Bosses it’s a done deal and to leave you alone to do some real work — like compute all the New Media profits — I mean, residuals due WGA Members.
A failure to honestly negotiate with SAG (and a year ago the WGA) on the part of the 8 executives hiding behind the AMPTP (and taking out pricey trade ads while they fire competent people) does not constitute a failed negotiation strategy on SAG’s part (or for that matter the WGA).
Just sayin’…
OK, so if we go on strike, pilot season still goes on — it’ll just be an all-AFTRA pilot season. Television will not be shut down. Yes, the few remaining SAG series will be shut down but there are plenty of reality and AFTRA shows to fill those gaps in the schedule or maybe they can just strip Leno at 9 AND 10.
And lets say the strike IS a success, we get a better contract (really doubtful outcome, but let’s entertain the possibility). What happens then? Producers are going to go into the SAG store and say, “Yes I like these actors but the prices are too high! I’m going across the street to the AFTRA store where I can get the exact same actors at a nice discount. Bye bye, SAG store.”
The end result of a strike, successful or not, is the same: no SAG on network television.
I can’t believe anyone with sense is going to vote to authorize a strike. We need to immediately begin to work toward merger with AFTRA and then in 3 years, renegotiate this contract as a single, much more powerful union.
I have been a SAG member since I joined in Texas in 1979 in a co-starring role cast locally. What I am going to say is not going to be popular – but I agree that the Guild won’t even get 50% yea. Even the IATSE members I work with every day know that a strike will immediately drive the contracts to AFTRA, at lower wages, worse conditions – and will indeed, in the end -mean the end to SAG. The only real solution is an Amalgamated Entertainment Guild, comprising everyone but the teamsters. Then we could get a fair deal. I will in no case vote for this strike authorization, and firmly believe that only animousity can result – throughout the nation – to the Guild – and I believe, that this guild was founded and is run to protect the salaries of the established stars and star agencies – all to the benefit of the egos of the stars, their agents, the studio heads and their negotiators – and to the detriment of all so-called ‘middle class actors’ – and no ‘guild minimums’ are going to make any difference to the stars because they don’t work for minimum anyway. No strike no way! We’ll work, and keep working, as is until we have one guild.
SAG had its chance at a fair contract. Instead of working together like a Union should, they decided to have a bitchfest, first with AFTRA then with each other.
Therefore they didn’t deal with the studios properly, that’s on SAG’s head not the studios. But no of course it’s always the other guys fault. No one can stand up and take the blame for the crappy leadership. It’s gotta be the Studios fault… No one else here is to blame. *rollseyes*
Ben Silverman knows one thing: How to make money.
Ben can get glassy-eyed about his “mentor” Brandon Tartikoff all he wants, but Tartikoff actually cared about the content on his network. It wasn’t about money as much as it was about content, the development of talent, and winning time slots.
I love how anyone who doesn’t want to strike is a corporate shill. Maybe we should start calling all you strike mongers “Rosenberg lackeys”. Some of us know how lucky we are to get paid to play dress up and make believe and would like to pay our mortgages. I somehow don’t think trying to feed my children is as selfish as a guy who lives off of the millions that his wife makes as an actress trying to put the rest of us out of work so he can escape her shadow. Apparently she didn’t like him that much either.
So, let me get this straight. The AMPTP calls SAG’s negotiating strategy “failed”, which means, I would guess, that SAG couldn’t get the AMPTP to move their positions far enough in order for SAG’s negotiating strategy to be successful? In this case, doesn’t this mean the AMPTP is admitting their “last best final” offer sucks for actors???
And if this is the case, isn’t the appropriate response on the part of SAG membership to authorize a strike in order to help its leadership move from a “failed” negotiating strategy to a successful one???
The audacity of SAG here is breathtaking. Typical actor mentality. They are not the only ones who work in this industry. The earth does not revolve around them but they believe it does. A strike by actors now would devastate the LA economy. Crew members, post production and people who rely on business generated by production will be out of work. Everyone will pay the price for the arrogance of SAG. The revenue stream for new media is still an ongoing experiment. Hulu has only been around for a year or so and I would bet its only making enough money from the advertising on it to run the site. It costs a lot of money to produce good content. A few banner ads are not going to cover that. The current model is an experiment and a freebie as most people want content for free on the internet. Asking for residuals from something that is not making money is crazy. SAG should sign a fair contract now and keep a close eye on new media revenue in the next couple of years. Then they come back to the table and have much more leverage. I am not a studio shill btw, just a guy trying to earn a living in this business.
I am shocked and amazed that there are people who don’t want to give our negotiators the power to strike. Are you kidding me? That’s the only power we have people. If the referendum doesn’t pass then the negotiations are over and we take the same crappy deal that AFTRA took. GUESS WHAT HAPPENS PEOPLE? The end of residuals. I make my living from residuals. I don’t have a second job. Haven’t in 10 years. Are you telling me that it should be okay for me to go back to being a bartender again? IT’S NOT OKAY. I worked my butt off to get to this level. AFTRA was foolish in taking the deal. But it’s not the first time. Any of you worked an AFTRA TV show lately? Wanna try and make a living from that?
I agree with virtually every anti-strike argument here. I acknowledge to SAG that the terms the AMPTP proposes aren’t great. But this is not the time for a strike. Not in these conditions. Especially when that strike will accomplish nothing because SAG has no leverage right now. That was squandered away months ago by bad leadership.
We’ve heard the arguments from both sides. But it comes down to one simple truth — a strike right now, in this economy, will only hurt the vast majority of people who work in the business and it will have an equally devastating effect on the Los Angeles economy. You can tell us to deliver that message and our concerns to the AMPTP, you can claim that the AMPTP is forcing you to strike and that you have no choice, you can repeat that as much as you like. But in the end, the public at large will blame actors, despise actors and hold you and your union responsible because you called a strike. No matter how you try to spin it, that will be on you.
If you have a conscience, if you care even a little about the lives of others who depend on production to survive, then you will not authorize a strike. Not now. You’ll wait three years and take up the issue then, with a better strategy and new leadership. It can’t be made any plainer than that.
And no, I’m not a shill, not working on behalf of the AMPTP. I work on a show, like a lot of other people in this business.
Ace Sez: “All of” us are not voting for a – “deciding to” – strike, we are voting to give our negotiators the power (”permission”) to strike if we’re forced to do so.”
And Hillary Clinton and John Kerry didn’t vote for the Iraq war, they only gave the president the authorization to prosecute one.
Personally I think Tom Hanks would vote yes on this. He has said that he doesn’t want to see a strike, but knows that the AMPTP is going to make him and all other actors strike.
Overall, Nick Counter forgot two things that will help both him and NBC. First off, when the strike authorization vote comes in, it will be on a Friday and most Americans don’t really pay attention to the news on Friday night. At the same time, this would give Wall Street and the AMPTP time to digest the results.
Second, NBC has to love this news because it saves the Golden Globes from the threat of a strike, and there will not be a boycott after what happened last year. On the other hand, the Oscars are in horrible trouble if the vote to strike is 75% or more. Somehow Nick Counter must love living on the edge.
Thom,
Yeah HULU is just scraping by with 70 million in revenue in 2008. It’s been operating less than a year.
From The Financial Times.
“Neither company breaks out its advertising revenues but Arash Amel, analyst at Screen Digest, forecasts that in 2008 YouTube will generate about $100m in the US, compared with about $70m at Hulu. Next year both sites will generate about $180m in the US, he says. YouTube currently earns around half of its revenues in the US, while Hulu has not yet launched internationally.”
Why bother fighting for New Media. The studios must be telling the truth. They’re not making a dime.
Hopefully you’re not a voting membe of SAG Thom, because what they don’t need right now is more uninformed members.
Not-A-Shill said “The only real solution is an Amalgamated Entertainment Guild”
Finally, someone says what needs to be said. For as long as two guilds exist, they will be played against each other by the big boys. And actors will still be cheated out of revenue from new and newer media.
And don’t forget the independent producers. Producers are the ones that actually make everything happen and the system is stacked against them. At the end of a deal they have no IP equity and they end up working for pennies, while the big boys keep it all.
Advice – Vote No. Keep the system going during the begining of this depression and immediately organize a new combined guild where everyone gets a piece of the pie.
UnitedActorsGuild.com is still available from Godaddy
Sincerely
Michael Relfe
@ Thom: You need to educate yourself — how can you even involve yourself in this discussion when you erroneously assert that Hulu uses banner ads? It doesn’t. It runs actual, profit-generating spots, and is making the studios money. Money that they are not paying residuals on to the writers, which is an out-and-out violation of the MBA. The AMPTP is breaking the law.
The fact that writers aren’t getting a dime on new media in violation of their contract is exactly why SAG should authorize a strike. Unless, of course, they like the idea of getting screwed just as the writers are being screwed.
WGA should have waited long enough to strike with SAG. Then the leeches that are the AMPTP could have been brought to their knees.
Hasn’t anyone noticed that NBC after this season is doing away with a drama or sitcoms, etc. in the prime time hour of 10 pm? Instead we get Jay Leno because it’s cheaper for them. No new show to go into this time slot means less jobs for tv actors. What about Diedre Hall and Drake Hogestyn being let go on Days of Our Lives because they were getting a lot of money. Again NBC or whoever pays them had to cut the budget somewhere. If you strike you may be looking at little to no work and possibly less than what’s currently available. Do you really want to add to more unemployment with your selfish act? You might just put yourselves out of work with another strike. Bad enough we had to deal with a writer’s strike last year and now a potentional actors’ strike? I don’t watch that many shows on NBC, Fox, etc. and when I do it’s mainly Fox. BBC America has great shows, no writer’s strike, no actors’ strikes either to worry about. We have reality channels to chose stuff from to so don’t think your jobs are secure by any means!
What I think has been forgotten is that it has been month since you started this.
The industry has slowed to a crawl. I first heat about a possible strike in May or June ? You had some talks that went nowhere. You waited 3 months to get a mediator to help. I first remember hearing strike vote in October, then November, then December and now your saying January ? to be counted on Jan 23 rd ? The IA workers have seen new jobs stop. There are no new projects starting cuz of possible strike. No movies have started in months because of possible strike. Now you want to prolong it out more and you wonder why we’re mad ? You think we’re supportive ? I am not a shill, I am a IATSE member seeing my career and bank account fading to a slow death because of a “possible strike” that took soooooo long to possibly happen. If you would have voted and done something 4-6 months ago you would have had backing by a lot of crafts. No one cares if you get what you want because you got it at the expense of so many peoples life’s and livelihood. This is not you fighting for us, you have killed us then stepped on us to get it.
The strike authorization vote will fail with 53% simple majority “yes” vote. The AMTP will then pull the current offer off the table, as producers will feel it’s totally irrational to offer actors a cent more than paying them under the expired SAG contract. “No” voters will be perplexed that promising producers there will be no strike leads to no new contract offered, the old one having been pulled off the table. Film production will ramp up to a mild crawl and work will be scarce because insurers will still be reluctant to issue completion bonds without an AMTP/SAG contract. SAG members who are no fi-core will defy rule one and work non-union shoots for new media despite a few “symbolic” SAG board hearings over rule one violation. Those who voted “no” will blame everybody but themselves that “new media” is the new music video where they’ll be lucky to get paid at all, let alone ever see a dime of residuals. Commercial actors will see their income slowly disappear as advertisers stick products in the hand of actors without compensation in order to create “actor payment and fast-forward-proof” commercials. AMPTP will never pay force majure payments owed, nor will they pay any new payments due under the expired contract. AFTRA will continue to gain jurisdiction by contracting actors’ services for chump change, and will continue toward rolling back or eliminating residuals as it did on “bold and the beautiful” in order to shove actors under the bus to preserve itself. Not only will actors not merge with other performing unions, but they won’t even be able to unify among themselves. Producers will be grateful that SAG will have voted itself out of the power to interfere with the Oscars which will go forward as planned. AMPTP will have renewed faith in the power of 100% hardball and will roll over other performing unions like bowling pins.
Believe me, don’t believe me. It doesn’t matter. Watch.
Luzid:
No offense to my acting brothers and sisters, but SAG is seriously effed up. No way the WGA should have waited for them.
But even if they had waited for SAG, the writers wouldn’t have gotten a better deal as long as Certain Former Guild Presidents were promoting a shit deal with DGA and the AMPTP.
That gurgling sound is from the throat AFTRA cut on all performers. They are and will remain a worthless, bankrupt union. Why “yes?” This current crop of executives have no respect for the profession. There are but a few performers that are quite accustomed to being out of work. These execs will get laid off from their respective conglomerate. They can push their pencils elsewhere unless Tom Hanks is willing to do his dialog to a “c” stand for his 20 million. We gave up on reasonable Dvd’s residuals and the studio stance is to whittle this previous weakness further by this firm stance. I know this effects all filmmakers in other crafts, but is is time to stand against the suits. I can do their job, but they can’t do mine. If they could, the “biz” wouldn’t shut down. The suits hold all craft persons in contempt which is why they hate to pay you while they jump in their new Mercedes on their way to Bel Aire. As to SAG’s leadership… S**t or get off the pot!
@ Grippin’ in LA – yeah, Youtube’s generating millions, but last I heard, they’ve never made a profit. You think serving millions of videos a day is cheap?! Youtube probably spends every day what you earn in a year.
I love that the AMPTP uses the word “bail out,” every time they send out a missive or response. Can’t their paid hacks do better than that? Maybe they should hire the WGA to write their propaganda for them.
Members of SAG I see the flaws of unions, but authorize your union to strike, you have no leverage otherwise, and it is quite clear that in this game of poker, if you don’t at least threaten one, you will lose all your chips and your union will be broken for the next generation, at least.
All of this extraordinarily intelligent gamesmanship on the part of the producer.
Hard economy + no love for unions (see UAW) = a crushing blow to ever receiving a residual payment or decent health care again. They can roll it all back now and never give an inch again, just as the old models die and the new models come in. If you do not win now they will never have to pay you a fair wage again for anything involving new media.
I know everyone just wants to work, but when times are hardest, that’s when you need to step up or their won’t be any work for you, or at least no living to be made at it. As I said, I don’t think unions are perfect, but in this case SAG leadership is right, as network TV becomes a dinosaur to new media, this is now make or break time.
Empower your leaders to empower you and prepare yourselves now. The fight is now and its repercussions will last for years to come.
Isn’t a SAG strike now about like the UAW going out for better pay and benefits…this week? Not a propitious time to hold a labor action?
Enrigue,
Youtube is making a profit. Their operating costs all in are roughly $5 million dollars a month while their revenue is is roughly $8.3 million a month and growing. Google, which owns them, isn’t making money but that’s due to aggressive expansion and buying up the competition.
Yes, Youtube spends more in a day than I make in a year, like somehow that invalidates my point, thanks, but my cost control is better so my profit margin is much higher.
And it’s easy for a corporation to show zero profit on $100 million in revenue, just look at studio accounting, that doesn’t mean that individuals within that corporation aren’t getting rich. Money is being made, they’re just good at hiding it.
Yes AFTRA may have played SAG for a fool and screwed them, and yes the AMPTP may be playing both guilds against each other. The fact remains that at the end of the day SAG and the AMPTP must reach an agreement on a new MBA. In the meantime, there will be a Strike Authorization vote passed and the clear thing about that vote is that the AMPTP deserves it. SAG has been trying long and hard to bargain in good faith but the AMPTP refuses to even negotiate. Ask the WGA what happened when their strike began on the east coast? The AMPTP walked out on them while the UAW and the automakers continued to negotiate after their strike deadlines passed.
Also, who screwed who this year? As I recall, AFTRA screwed SAG. AFTRA and SAG went into negotiations together as was always the case, but AFTRA simply decided to split from SAG on the basis that each guild would be informed of each other’s progress. Soon after, AFTRA started shutting out SAG, and when the AFTRA/AMPTP agreement was reached, AFTRA avoided SAG for days before having to cough up their info. Translation, if that isn’t being screwed, I don’t know what is. On that basis, SAG can go ahead and screw AFTRA by putting in contract language saying that all scripted TV must be SAG though all current AFTRA shows will be grandfathered into the new agreement. A concession can be that SAG can allow the 17 to 24 day window to remain in new media except that all shows must run for at least two months on the internet. I am sure that Nick Counter would allow this because internet originals would be AFTRA’s area.
AR and DA want to strike. The notion that they only want the authorization as leverage is untrue. They know perfectly well that it won’t give them any or at the very least, they suspect as much. To those of you who want a strike, I suppose that’s all the more reason to vote yes. To the rest of you, your yes vote for authorization is a vote to strike.
VOTE NO!
Grippin,
The 70 million your talking about is gross profit:
“We estimate Hulu will sell between $45 million and $90 million of advertising during its first 12 months — April 2008 through March 2009. By the time it pays off its content partners, it will book between $12.5 million and $25 million in net revenue.” -Silicon Alley insider
For a major joint studio effort this can hardly be considered a great success considering the amount of money spent building and maintaining the site. By contrast the itunes store netted $570 million.
One of the main sticking points for SAG are residuals from original made for new media productions, for which there are almost no examples of a successful revenue stream in place on the internet. When was the last time you saw an original new media production on the net which was a union show???
There is a huge cost difference between someone filming themselves on their webcam for youtube and producing a union show. So the youtube revenue example is a totally different game because that is user generated content and has infinitely more users.
And no I am not a member of SAG. I am an editor who is gonna get screwed yet again by this strike if it happens.
Luzid,
I did not erroneously assert that Hulu uses banner ads exclusively as you imply. I was referring to new media websites in general. BTW Hulu does use banner type ads in addition to the spots that run before the shows. Peruse the site. At any rate to try to impugn my comments based on a semantical argument about the correct name of the ads is ridiculous.
As far as studios violating existing agreements I completely agree with you. That is shameful.
My overall point is that we are all in this industry together and that everybody should be using good judgement when bargaining less we are all out of work
No amount of ignorant and uninformed rhetoric, from unemployed and umemployable SAG members, will convince me that giving the failed leaders of our union the authorization to continue to drive SAG into irrelevancy is the right thing to do. Strike and we lose…AMPTP doesn’t care, for they well on their way to becoming strike proof. Strike and we lose and we suffocate and we become an asterisk…never again having the leverage to regain what a potential work stoppage will cause us to lose.
We are in a recession that will take the better part of Obama’s presidency to emerge from. No clear-thinking SAG member should kid themselves about what a strike will mean. Once done it will not be undone. It will be the end of the road for SAG.
Understand what a YES vote will mean. Take the time to analyze what you are willing to risk. Think not only of yourself, but the lives of thousands of family members who depend on our industry for their livlihood. This should not be a frivolous decision.
It may be the single, most important decision of you have ever made in your career.
Response to Eileen Henry’s letter. Some facts, some observations, some, uh, sanity…
Oh, and Eileen? Has Richard Masur (hubby) been brought up on charges yet? How’s that “confidentiality” thing going. Or that “non-disparagement” thing?
———————————
Why I’m voting NO on the Strike Authorization Referendum
By Eileen Henry
The Board’s responsible decision in October to try and bail out the negotiations and save face for SAG/LA leadership by involving a mediator demonstrated maturity and fiscal responsibility in an organization that has gained a reputation for knee-jerk, emotional responses. I congratulate those members of the NY Board, the Regional Branch Division and the new members of the Hollywood Board who have remained calm and clear-headed during very difficult times. These board members’ intention was for the negotiating committee to go back to the table (something that hadn’t happened since July) in a good faith attempt to finally negotiate the agreement that the WGA, DGA and AFTRA have all signed on to. Instead, the committee put DVDs back on the table ensuring the mediation would go nowhere. Even the WGA took their DVD proposal off the table before their strike. The vote in the negotiating committee to send out the Strike Authorization Referendum was not unanimous indicating that some members of the SAG team understand the realities and subsequently where the deal lies.
—————————————-
It was 97% to 3%, which equals 2 people.
———————————-
Now it’s the memberships’ turn to weigh in on this important issue. While I have never, ever voted against a strike authorization in my life I will quickly cast my no vote and hope that many members do the same. A strike authorization is a tool of leverage for your negotiator and negotiating committee but it’s crystal clear that the timing is wrong. It’s time for the membership to look behind the curtain and see the naked emperor. Only then can we clothe him and send him on his way.
Labor Relations 101: If you want to take a membership out on strike, you must be able to shut down the industry. It’s one of the reasons why the Phase One Agreement between SAG and AFTRA was created back in the 1980s – to ensure that in the event of a job action – ALL actors were on the same page. to avoid a strike.
—————————————————-
No movie production is a pretty good way to shut down the studios. As for television, 90-something percent of this work is done under SAG. Companies can’t switch a program from SAG To AFTRA. Let’s not pretend the studios and networks don’t need SAG actors.
—————————————————–
That essential leverage ended when SAG initiated a campaign early last year to end Phase One and began pummeling AFTRA relentlessly. After rescinding a motion to send a referendum to SAG members to end the Phase One Agreement, SAG/LA leadership sat down with a Soap Opera cast for 2 hours discussing how to decertify from AFTRA which is a huge breach of trust and an enormous labor no-no. It was the last straw for AFTRA resulting in SAG heading to the TV/Theatrical negotiations alone.
—————————————————–
Even the soap opera actors involved have sent letters setting this straight. and have made it crystal clear that SAG sent them to AFTRA. Yet the rumor mill continues despite the fact that a very well respected actress who was at the meeting put out the truth about what happened.
If SAG takes a strike under the TV/Theatrical Contract it will not shut down the industry. SAG actors, 44,000 of which are also AFTRA actors, will continue to work on new TV shows, as they will be produced using the AFTRA contract. It’s reported that film work has been stockpiled for a year. You might not like the message, but it is reality.
Additional leverage was gone once the WGA took a strike. As a SAG and AFTRA member I have no say in what the WGA does, but the reality is that the WGA’s 100 day strike at this very time, last year, took a huge toll on actors’ salaries. Have you recovered that lost income?
———————————————
Luckily our founders didn’t take this “I’ll worry about that later” stance, or did thousands of courageous writes that hit the streets last year. Let’s stick to the “me first” attitude.
———————————————
Any leverage we might have had left evaporated along with the DOW, the S&P and NASDAQ. We have been in a major recession for the past year, over a million jobs lost in just a few months and both President Bush and President-Elect Obama are warning the American people that the end is nowhere in sight.
——————————————
Media moguls are fairing rather well.
——————————————-
The fact is SAG was last in line of all the entertainment unions to negotiate a contract with the AMPTP. Because of that fact, a “pattern” has been established. The deal to be made is to a) get jurisdiction in New Media (which WGA, DGA and AFTRA have done and SAG currently has NOT) and b) take DVDs off the table. The WGA removed their DVD proposal BEFORE they went on strike, and both the DGA and AFTRA had no DVD proposals.
———————————————
SAG never took the DVD proposal off the table. That’s just a fact.
———————————————
The simplest and cleanest way to establish jurisdiction is to get management to voluntarily recognize the union as the collective bargaining agent for that work. That is exactly what the DGA, WGA and AFTRA did, and their willingness to give on the residuals in low budget productions in New Media made this possible. SAG’s unwillingness to accept that reality is why we have been working without a contract for over five months.
———————————————–
SAG has jurisdiction in new media. Ask the 800 independent producers who have singed SAG new media contracts. And members can’t work without a SAG contract under Rule One.
And while there would be no residuals for work made in this one area of New Media for the time being, this provision will expire (”sunset“) at the end of this contract in 2011. The same is true for the DGA, WGA, and AFTRA, meaning all the unions will have to renegotiate New Media in 2011, giving us overwhelming leverage at that time. Since the current deal also requires the studios to report fully on all the New Media work they do (including budgets and creative staff) by the time we sit down to renegotiate, the unions will have a very strong case to make for changes in the contract. We can make a case that our employers are making money from our work when we have a) the jurisdiction and b) the facts. At this moment, it’s all speculative.
————————————————
Hello? Remember “I Love Lucy?” Billions lost because there were no residuals. Let’s buck up and hold on to future residuals.
————————————————-
And, even if SAG miraculously were able to achieve jurisdiction with residuals, it would do nothing more than ensure that all work would be done under an AFTRA contract, since AFTRA has been working under the deal that’s on the table since July.
————————————————
So should SAG try for lower terms? That’s the spirit!
————————————————
The question then becomes, “Is the membership prepared to strike on a concept and not actual money in your pocketbook” during a time of economic uncertainty? If we had some leverage left in our back pocket, I’d be willing to entertain the conversation but SAG’s leverage is gone.
————————————————–
Ok. So gamble with money you haven’t earned yet, hoping that you never earn it anyway? Huh?
————————————————-
As many people in our industry are fond of saying, “Timing is everything.” Our timing is off and by a long shot.
Sadly,
Eileen Henry,
Former 2nd National Vice President, Screen Actors Guild
Former NY President, Screen Actors Guild
Current Trustee, Screen Actors Guild Pension and Health Plan
———————————————–
(I hope you care more about our P & H Plan than you have you do our contract I’ve earned those benefits!)
From Thom
“One of the main sticking points for SAG are residuals from original made for new media productions, for which there are almost no examples of a successful revenue stream in place on the internet. When was the last time you saw an original new media production on the net which was a union show???”
Thom,
SAG main sticking point on original made for new media is jurisdiction not residuals. They want as much of new media to be produced union as possible. They’ve already signed 800 contracts with individual productions companies. They want to protect jobs, what’s wrong with that?
From Thom,
“There is a huge cost difference between someone filming themselves on their webcam for youtube and producing a union show. So the youtube revenue example is a totally different game because that is user generated content and has infinitely more users.”
Thom,
Here’s where residuals come in. Hulu doesn’t generate any content, it re-uses and replays network programming and feature films. It’s a joint venture between Universal and FOX to exploit re-runs of existing shows and their catalogues of old shows.
Residuals are paid as a percentage of what the producers make (profit not revenue). If they don’t make any money off of Hulu there’s no residuals to pay. Seems pretty reasonable.
If you are an IATSE editor are you happy with the tentative agreement. Do you know that half of IATSE’s health plan is funded through residuals paid to IATSE?
The issue regarding new media isn’t original new media productions. It is having all shows and movies that premiered in theaters and on television, posted on websites such as hulu.com, and not getting paid residues for them. In addition, the AMPTP already owes the WGA millions for not paying new media residues owed to that guild for new media. Plus, add to the fact that the AMPTP owes SAG millions and billions in Force Majoure payments and you have to wonder why Alan and Doug want to strike. Alan and Doug are looking out toward the future of the Screen Actors Guild. The people that vote no on Strike Authorization are only looking out for themselves, and want the SAG to screw itself.
Bobbar….
you’ve been doing this for 10yrs and don’t have your SAG card?
ok there are two ways to get into SAG
METHOD 1: Book a principle role in a SAG signatory production (read: real movie with real financing) you will then have a 30 day grace period to work other SAG jobs and after that you will have to join the union which has a price tag of about 2300.00
METHOD 2: All SAG productions are required to have a certain amount of SAG extras on set, naturally the production companies will hire the least amount needed and at times less than that. At such times some non-SAG BG are given waivers and are treated as SAG BG actors for the day. Collect three of said waivers. walk into SAG office in LA. show pay stubs and yellow papers. pay 2300.00 with smile on your face.
get SAG card.
…
but seriously.
…
Don’t deride the success of other actors because you feel the world hasn’t noticed your Daniel-Day-Lewis level talent, those people you mention, well they worked the shitty jobs too, but they got out, did free work, built up a career and now get to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
read the bleating writing on the wall, if you’re a such a good actor, why after 10 years has not a single person with real money asked you to say even a single line on when that beautiful celluloid is a-rollin?… I guess the whole world must be stupid.. not you.
Keri Tombazian has launched a site to, apparently, present one side of the SAG labor impasse situation. The site contains no “blog” although it has a link up top to “blog.” So far it is simply a series of regurgitated statements from various anti-Membership First voices and anti-strike authorization, pro-merger, anti-SAG, pro-AFTRA, etc., etc., sources. Let’s examine a few of the highlights, shall we?
—————————————————-
“Support from others? Not so much.”
She then goes on to quote from Michael Seitzman, a writer, from his piece in HuffPo. Seitzman’s point basically boils down to “bad timing.” He was gung-ho, as a writer, when the WGA walked. He was, I’m sure, happy to have such steadfast support from SAG, whose members walked the lines with the WGA, because SAG knew “the WGA’s fight is SAG’s fight.” However, Mr. Seitzman tells us “SAG’s fight ISN’T MY fight (for more steadfast WGA members who support SAG, I direct readers to Robert J. Ellisburg’s piece in HuffPo, who doesn’t feel right and wrong has much to do with “timing.”) right Now, at this particular point in TIME, because, well, the ECONOMY, and, you know, I think SAG should just, you know, uh, EAT this deal, because WE did, and, you know, it’s not such a good TIME.”
That’s it. That’s all Setizman’s got. And Tombazian LEADS with him.
————————————————–
Then, Tombazian selectively quotes from anti-MF, pro-AMPTP Jonathan Handel (don’t tell me he’s evenhanded. I’ve read every single one of his pieces and seen every single one of his interviews).
BUT, Tombazian conveniently leaves out the FIRST SENTENCE of Handel’s piece, which says:
“SAG says there should always be residuals for reuse of any kind of production, and that this is the opening gambit in an attempt to eliminate residuals altogether. SAG’s probably right.”
link: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=414868268797627951&postID=8699712255683570520&page=1
Now, that’s a “stop right there” sentence. Handel CONCEDES that this is probably an opening move in phasing out residuals. Tombazian doesn’t print that. Kind of a key sentence Keri – don’t you think?
“Does it make sense for SAG to forego these increases, continue to lose market share, and strike over something so meaningless today? No.”
So says Handel. After a healthy dose of Jonathan’s patently one-sided “research” he comes to the conclusion that, despite precedent on the big-ticket items of the past 25 years – VHS/DVD residuals (1986) and Cable residuals (1988) SAG should, not just “fool me twice” but “fool me three times.” There is NO PRECEDENT for the AMPTP, once they establish a profit stream and a business model, after getting SAG to “trust” them to renegotiate when the money starts rolling, of the AMPTP coming back to “revisit” or “renegotiate” the deal.
As Handel HIMSELF said, in one of his moments of clarity in one of his on-line interviews, “Precedents are like roach motels – they check in, but they never check out.”
The whole “SAG should fight over this in three years” which Tombazian quotes Handel as saying, argument is absurd. Completely, utterly absurd. It is the labor negotiation equivalent of being confronted by a bully in the schoolyard, having him punch you in the face, and, with blood streaming down your chin, you look him straight in the eye, pull yourself up to your full height, and say: “we’ll fight about this in three years!” What generally happens – in real life? – in such a situation, is the bully punches you again, then kicks you in the balls. It is a negotiating strategy completely out of touch with precedent, or, for that matter, the way the world actually works. You want the bully who just punched you in the nose to stop? Well, he’s a bully, so he’s BANKING that you got nothin’. So, if you want it to stop – you better punch HIM in the nose, then kick HIM in the balls. That’s life 101. That’s historical precedent 101. That’s labor precedent 101. Period.
———————————-
Then Tombazian goes to Rhea Perlman and Danny DeVitos’ “wonderful letter.” Let’s just call it a “letter” shall we Keri? “Wonderful?” The Gettysburg Address. The Declaration of Independence. “I Have a Dream.” DeVito? He and his wife wrote a letter. That’s enough.
Now, is it just me, or does it need to be pointed out that this “wonderful letter” is probably being written from the DeVito’s “wonderful 10 million dollar home” in Beverly Hills somewhere. The opinions and advice of two seriously rich TV and movie stars? As a “middle-class actor” – I gotta tell you – not so wonderful. Danny and Rhea, god bless ‘em, are worried about the ancillary businesses and a “lack of leverage.” Danny tells us “we need to work together” by merging with AFTRA. Again – bully punches you in nose, blood streaming down – YOU say “I have to go merge with AFTRA.” Bully punches you again. Kicks in balls.
“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.” (DeVito/Perlman)
This is THE talking point right now for the “don’t strike – take the deal – keep your mouth shut – don’t piss the producers off” crowd.
Unfortunately, it is both an outright LIE, and an admission of profound weakness. A vote to AUTHORIZE a strike (”yes” when the ballot comes) means ONE thing: it means, if SAG has 75% “yes” of those who vote, SAG will empower our negotiators to go see the AMPTP again, and say – “Here it is. The strike authorization. Now. Do YOU want to negotiate in good faith, or, do YOU want to cause a work stoppage?”
If SAG does not take that labor negotiation 101 step, SAG and SAG membership are forgoing THE tool that allows SAG to at least ATTEMPT to find out if the AMPTP wants to cause this strike, OR, if the AMPTP is willing – FINALLY – to negotiate in good faith, and make a deal.
If SAG doesn’t give it’s negotiators that tool? Then SAG has shown profound weakness as a “union,” as in “well, we DO have this weapon, but, eh, they’re gonna win anyway, so, why even try?”
That is unconscionable, abject COWARDICE.
The only people saying “a vote to authorize a strike is a vote to strike” are COWARDS and LIARS. It is factually untrue, it takes out of the hands of our negotiators their ONLY real weapon with the AMPTP, and it betrays the true lack of loyalty these people harbor. They won’t give the authorization vote for these reasons and these reasons only: THEY HATE MEMBERSHIP FIRST and THEY HATE ALAN ROSENBERG AND DOUG ALLEN. There IS no other credible explanation – why, would you EVER, take out of the hands of your negotiators the ONE actual weapon SAG has to get a fair, or, at the very least, better deal? Answer? You don’t trust the people you are giving it to to use it wisely.
This, DESPITE THE FACT, that the FINAL decision to strike is in the hands of the NATIONAL BOARD, which has a one-vote majority of “moderates,” and is no longer controlled by Membership First.
———————————————–
There is a time for moderation. There is a time for thoughtful consideration and delay. That time has passed. The AMPTP has drawn a line in the sand. They decided on this well before they entered into day 1 of the negotiations with the DGA. That line is simple: the AMPTP wants to phase out residuals as content inexorably moves to the internet. They have PUT IN WRITING that they no longer wish to pay residuals:
———————————————-
Hollywood Executives Call for End to Residual Payments
By MICHAEL CIEPLY
New York Times
Published: July 11, 2007
ENCINO, Calif., July 11 — In an unusually blunt session here today, several of Hollywood’s highest-ranking executives called for the end of the entertainment industry’s decades-old system of paying what are called residuals to writers, actors and directors for the re-use of movie and television programs after their initial showings.
————————————
“living to fight another day,” some imagined day, in three years (seems to be the consensus) when SAG will join hands with the WGA and AFTRA and IATSE when “the economy is better” and SAG has “real leverage,” and we will then “ROLLBACK the giveaways from 2008″:
1. a HUGE nonunion space in our own contract, for the FIRST time in SAG history and, in violation of our core principles (written, by the way, by Richard Masur, one of the BIGGEST Membership First haters in the union).
2. NO RESIDUALS for original content for new media, again, in violation of our core principles: “actors be paid fairly for all reuse of their work” (residuals)
3. Loss of clip consent
4. Actors become “walking commercials” in TV and movies in the new world of the producers’ version of product placement.
5. The AMPTP simply refuses to pay the 60 MILLION dollars it owes SAG members from force majeure during the writer’s strike, AND the AMPTP takes away the right of force majeure from SAG for THE FIRST TIME IN SAG’s HISTORY.
———————————————–
Keri Tombazin is a successful voice over performer. She is a union activist. She is not, however, a “middle class actor.” I have all the respect in the world for her voice over work. Good for her. She has the right to express her
opinion, of course. But she IN NO WAY speaks for the tens of thousands of middle-class actors – ACTORS – who this particular TV/Theatrical contract will be put out of business. Nor does Danny DeVito nor Rhea Perlman. Nor does Mike Farrel or Amy Brenneman or Ned Vaughn or ANYONE ELSE.
MIDDLE -CLASS actors must decide FOR THEMSELVES whether this KILLER of a contract is worth fighting against. THEY must decide if they “trust” the AMPTP, despite ALL EXISTING precedent, to renegotiate the dire terms of this contract “in three years” once they begin to establish a profit stream from new media, once they turn actors into walking sandwich boards for product placement money from advertisers, once producers gain the right to use YOUR image anywhere, anytime, in whatever manner they please, WITHOUT your consent, which you currently have as a RIGHT by contract, once they refuse to pay SAG 60 million dollars in force majeure payment SAG is OWED – AND take away our force majeure protections we’ve has as a union since 1937.
If you believe the AMPTP is really going to return to SAG in three years and GIVE BACK THESE GAINS – then, by all means, vote “no” on the strike authorization ballot. If, however, you at least want to FIGHT to preserve middle-class actors’ ability to at least have a shot at making a decent living, then DON’T trust the nay-sayers, both within our union, and without.
WE MUST demand a fair contract and we MUST be willing to do whatever is necessary to get a fair contract.
VOTE “YES”
Matt Mulhern
SAG, AFTRA, DGA, AEA