EXCLUSIVE: There's rarely anything spontaneous in Hollywood when it involves powerful actors and powerful moguls. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that a carefully orchestrated campaign is about to get underway in the trades and mainstream press to pressure (and no doubt demonize as strike-militant before too long) SAG president Alan Rosenberg and national executive director Doug Allen (aka "the football guy") along the same lines that WGAW president Patric Verrone and WGAW executive director Dave Young (aka "the garmento guy) were. (SEE UPDATE BELOW WITH SAG BOARD MEMBER'S UNOFFICIAL RESPONSE)
I hear that on Thursday the trades will carry an ad signed by George Clooney, Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep, Robert De Niro, and others trying to push the SAG leaders to start negotiations early. Also, Matt Damon, Reese Witherspoon, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, etc will begin making phone calls to SAG leadership on Friday. Also, a piece on this subject has been signed by Hanks and Clooney and submitted to the Los Angeles Times Op-Ed page. (Question: Don't LAT editors ever ask who was the actual author of a piece like this? I was recently told "no".)
Next Tuesday, News Corp No. 2 Peter Chernin and Disney CEO Bob Iger are taking out an ad in the trades responding to the Clooney ad and will invite SAG/AFTRA in for early informal conversations. How interesting that this campaign kicking off coincides with complaints from Hollywood CEOs that they fear starting principal photography on movies if the actors will walk come June. As the WGA talks drew to a close, top agents said privately they would now focus all their energies on averting a SAG strike. Then, at last week's luncheon for Oscar nominees, Clooney sounded off about his guild.
Right now, no SAG-mogul talks have yet been scheduled on the contract that expires June 30. But at least Rosenberg and Allen have been learning from the trials and tribulations that the WGA went through at the hands of the Hollywood CEOs. One of the first problems they'll face is whether SAG should institute a "qualified voting" earnings threshold requirement. (Ever since the extras union merged with SAG to strengthen the guild, only a third of SAG's 120,000 members earn more than $1,000 as SAG actors. But now the elite working actors want to take away the right of all SAG members to vote on the guild's major contracts. The WGA went through something similar years ago.) A two-week-old petition has circulated among SAG's working TV and film actors. Rosenberg and Allen will be meeting next week with reps from the petition group.
UPDATE: A SAG board member responds to me unofficially about the A-list pressure: "SAG W & W (wages & working conditions) meetings are taking place practically everyday at 5757 Wilshire Blvd. This is where the membership talks with the SAG leadership about what they'd like changed in the contract. Talks with the AMPTP, even informal ones, would be premature until this process is over. (It concludes the end of February). I also find it disingenuous that the people listed as "pressuring SAG to go in early" are NOT participating in this contract talk process with their union, nor do you hear them speaking about any of the possible deal points in their comments to the press. Attendance of the W & W meetings is open to any actor with a current SAG card. It seems to be a very naive request to blindly call for early talks while we're 1) four months from our contract expiration, 2) only halfway through the w&w process, 3) have it handled. Doug Allen and Alan Rosenberg, in addition to our negotiation committee chairs, know what they are doing. Nobody is gunning for a strike. The focus is squarely upon composing a collection of needs for the acting community to be negotiated with our employers. The panic is unnecessary."
This just sounds fishy. What is to gain from A-listers pressuring SAG? Shouldn’t they pressure the Congloms?
Comment by Union — February 12, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
With all due respect to the very talented A-listers mentioned here, they by no means reflect socio-economically the vast majority of the guild. Alan Rosenberg’s career more accurately represents where most working actors are at.
The A-listers and apparently the moguls have that March 1 de facto feature strike date on their minds, and now that the writers are back, they’d like to fill their dance cards again. Understandable.
The moguls I’m sure would like nothing more than for SAG to rubber-stamp the WGA’s contract and move on. Rosenberg had already expressed reservations about the WGA’s handling of the DVD residual issue. That 17-day online window is also problematic as most viewers download or stream within a couple of days, not a couple of months. There may be other sticking points as well.
As for the earnings threshold on voting, I don’t know how SAG would handle this if they did it, but they should be mindful of disenfranchising actors who’d be able to vote if the shows they’ve been working on hadn’t gone AFTRA due to lowball bidding.
All of that being said, I’ll keep an open mind and try to be cautiously optimistic.
Comment by mheister — February 12, 2008 @ 11:49 pm
Never thought I’d say this about any group including Tom Hanks, but… what a bunch of assholes.
As with the WGA, you’ve got to trust your elected officials to do the job they were elected by the entire membership to do.
Looks like we’ve got our own Dirty 30. Way to subvert the democratic process, guys.
Comment by Series Regular — February 13, 2008 @ 1:06 am
That’s great. The WGA settles and SAG goes on strike. That’s just what this town needs — another strike. There will be no jobs left to come back to when this chaos is finally over.
Comment by herewegoagain — February 13, 2008 @ 2:24 am
A SAG strike would be irresponsible. I’m among the newly converted. Let’s all just go to work. Maybe one day everyone will figure out how to do this strike thing correctly. Until then, pass on the strikes.
Or keep repeating the same !@?%&*# mistakes.
I think IATSE is going to send out hitmen if there is another strike.
Comment by Harold — February 13, 2008 @ 4:56 am
If the AMPTP treats SAG as they did the WGA, expect a long, long walk. And if the HFP and Jeff Zucker sue the WGA, there will never be another Golden Globes.
And… scene!
Comment by AAA Actor — February 13, 2008 @ 5:14 am
Comment by Furious D — February 13, 2008 @ 5:20 am
There’s nothing fishy at all. These A listers don’t want a useless strike, they want mature and reasonable negotiations to begin now. Hasn’t this town suffered enough? You militants won’t be happy until the industry is destroyed.
Comment by Dave — February 13, 2008 @ 6:05 am
Qualified voting is the key. Let the real working union members vote and let the token members watch.
Comment by dp — February 13, 2008 @ 6:23 am
This is sad… and shameful for all of them. Carrying the water for big media — in an ad campaign to pressure the union — what? It’s crazy. Especially for George Clooney who sort of seemed like a smart guy. Clearly doesn’t get unionism or solidarity, or even the smallesst thing about bargaining power. Save Darfur? Save SAG from people who don’t know what they’re doing.
Did he just skip the chapter on “Harvest of Shame” in Murrow’s biography?
Comment by actorsfirst08 — February 13, 2008 @ 6:44 am
“Union” is correct - the “A-listers” should pressure the congloms, not their own union.
But they are selfish and self-absorbed people. These actors have an “I got mine attitude” that spits on the union that helped them get where they are, and spits on their colleagues.
The A-list actors were silent during the writers strike. It was the quality, working actors who spoke out. Clooney piped up only when their precious Oscars was threatened because he’s up for an Oscar and perhaps it will revive his acting career.
Why does George Clooney have to open his mouth about every single thing under the sun? He’s so self-important. He can’t put out a hit movie for anything - if he were a woman, he’d never get so many repeat chances.
Comment by business — February 13, 2008 @ 6:55 am
These are the same A-listers who claimed to have supported the WGA strike but NOT once bothered to walk a single picket line in solidarity. They get their million dollar contracts and every perk that comes down the pike and begrudge some low-level working actor his or her due. And now because working actors, who struggle everyday for work and fair pay, want to determine their own fate, those same A-listers want to squash yet again the walking class before they have a chance to fight for what’s rightfully theirs.
Maybe they should remember where they started and what it meant to get a residual or the basic minimum payment. And they should remember that without their Guild they would’ve never made enough money to make it to A-list status.
The struggling actor (like their writer and director brethren) depends on their respective Guild for their very survival. Without the Guild and its protections, minimum standards, and negotiations for what’s fair and reasonable no working actor, writer, or director could survive in this business.
So, to those A-listers I say, put up or shut up. Support those less fortunate then you, let your Guild leadership do its job. They’ve done pretty well so far.
Comment by jake Hollywood — February 13, 2008 @ 7:15 am
SAG should strike, if needed.
Why should they be pressured from doing whatever they need to do because their contract expired last in line?
You “just get back to work” loons need to get into a more stable business if you can’t take the uncertainty. That’s the nature of showbiz and a union town
Meanwhile, why don’t you pressure the Congloms to avert a strike? Or perhaps the shills haven’t yet clocked out.
Comment by sag DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO — February 13, 2008 @ 7:22 am
The A-listers have already been facing a downshift in the grotesque salaries and perks they get which hurt everyone else in the business. Less movies get made, less people are employed, less creative risks are taken, etc
They don’t want a strike to upset the apple cart resulting in a more equitable [and business smart] pay distribution
Must be tough for Alan Rosenberg to be pressured like that. Hope he stands strong.
Comment by bad business model — February 13, 2008 @ 7:28 am
Fair is fair and if the A-Listers are being unfair to the majority of their own guild then…NUTS to them. They are just penthouse liberals every single g-ddamn one of them.
Comment by P. Lee — February 13, 2008 @ 7:31 am
Or maybe these A listers know that a protracted strike will not be worth it to anyone. The template has already been set by the DGA and WGA. Who wants to strike for a 10 day window as opposed to a 17 day window; or a few tenths of a percentage point. And its not like Clooney or Hanks is going to suffer if SAG sits out for 1, 2, 3 years. These guys have hundreds of millions in the bank. Another strike will hurt who? The “working” actor. The BTL. All the ancillary businesses that depend on us in the entertainment industry to keep cranking out product. Personally, I’m just getting back to work. I don’t know anyone itching for another fight over so little.
Comment by bartleby — February 13, 2008 @ 7:36 am
I wonder how many non-A-Listers also want a strike averted. But, of course, only A-Listers get their names in the paper–or online.
“It seems to be a very naive request to blindly call for early talks while we’re 1) four months from our contract expiration, 2) only halfway through the w&w process, 3) have it handled.”
Halfway through???? How long will it be before they are ready to start negotiations? June 29th?
And 4 months is not “early.” The WGA, after declining to start talks 10 months before their contract expired, started talks about 3.5 months from their contract expiration.
As to “have it handled” time will tell on that.
Comment by Sarcastic Cynic — February 13, 2008 @ 7:44 am
Alan Rosenberg is an actor desperately seeking a new role — “The Guy that Brought Hollywood to its Knees”. I am of the opinion that his vision is one-sided and his capacity for compromise is very limited. He is a dangerous and potentially destructive leader. Part of the problem with SAG is that 90% of the union has nothing to lose if they strike. Rosenberg has surrounded himself with hyper inciters. Already the leadership of the DGA and the WGA are distancing themselves from this guy. The phrase, “He’s nuts” is used frequently to describe his demeanor.
The A-list petition is merely an attempt at checks and balances. Someone has to hold this guy accountable for his actions. I applaud those actors for putting their juice to good use.
Comment by Margos Dezirian — February 13, 2008 @ 8:02 am
There is a delicate balance to be achieved here. These stars are letting their leaders know they are not pro strike and they want to force them to work this out sooner rather than have to strike. This is a reasonable position.
Sag is going through their process before talks as they have always done and actors should go to the meeting and make their voice heard right now. The delicate issue, is simply that what we will be asking for in the contracts affects the big stars very little. They are not dependent on residuals or worried about making enough to keep their health insurance and their agents can cut them special deals on new media. For the rest of us, this contract is huge for our future and our leaders cannot bow to their pressure simply because they want to book some films. They share the screen with other actors in those films, we deserve to make a living as well.
Once they have made their voice known they want early talks they need to stick with their union and talk to leaders in private and not undercut our bargaining power. They may not care if the union falls apart in a few years with not enough money coming to members, but a lot of us do.
No sane actor wants a strike right now, we want to work, but we want to have a future as well, and that has to be our priority and not “whatever
shape the town is in”. The moguls can make a fair deal with us and avoid a work stoppage, we all know that.
The stars should be putting pressure on those people to do so.
Comment by Sagmember — February 13, 2008 @ 8:06 am
Let’s all work together.
Alan Rosenberg is about as angry a leader as there is out there. Even more than Verrone. He wants to leave a legacy and he thinks a strike would be just that.
SAG’s membership has less working members than the WGA. Of course no one wants to leave it to a general vote.
Yes, these are A-Listers. And they aren’t losing there homes, but they know people are…and they have the ability to have their voices heard.
Enough is enough. Our business is a wounded animal. Each year there are less jobs available across the board.
And finally…all people are doing is asking for them to get back to the table early. What the heck is wrong with that?
Comment by enough — February 13, 2008 @ 8:32 am
There will be a de facto shut down in about a month as nobody, studio or independent, will be able to start pre-production until they know when a new contract will be signed. Enjoy your summer!
Comment by tcw — February 13, 2008 @ 8:43 am
I never thought I’d say this but the “qualified voting” thing kind of makes sense, especially for SAG.
The interests of those who do not make any significant portion of their income through the guild versus those who do are so entirely different that I think these non-working members should voluntarily recuse themselves from the voting. And if they don’t, then they should (sadly but necessarily) be barred by guild regulation. Obviously, they should still weigh in on the discussions.
I think we’ve all learned that these negotiations and strikes are serious business.
Comment by WGA — February 13, 2008 @ 8:49 am
PLAN to negotiate SOON,
or PLOT to strike in JUNE!
Yes, I made that up. And which will it be Rosie?
BTL 399
Comment by TranspoBill — February 13, 2008 @ 8:57 am
Where the fuck were these guys during the WGA strike? Hanks wrote “That Thing You Do,” Clooney wrote “Goodnight and Goodluck,” and Damon wrote “Good Will Hunting.” They’re members of the WGA!!! I didn’t see any of them one goddamn time on the picket lines. They were too busy working, I guess (how did post on “Leatherheads” go, George?). You guys were a ton of help during the WGA strike. Way to use your clout!
Now they’re pressuring their leadership from the outside?! Is that because their interests so perfectly dovetail with those of the rank and file of SAG? They hide behind the notion that the industry doesn’t need another strike. Yeah, no one else got that, thanks, fellas.
The worst part is that they are publicly weakening their leadership at the very moment their leadership needs to be seen as strong, and SAG needs to be seen as united. What a bunch of assholes! Do they have any clue about how this works? If they want to avoid a strike, don’t use your clout to pressure Alan Rosenberg, use it to pressure the conglomerates. They’re the ones who caused the WGA strike. They could have ended it at any time, but chose to test our resolve… and found out our resolve was pretty damn strong… probably because our A-listers were smart enough not to write open letters to our leadership.
The other thing they don’t realize is that the WGA started negotiations with the conglomerates in July, and the conglomerates dicked around and told us to go fuck ourselves right up through the end of our contract, then walked away from the bargaining table for 40 days. If the conglomerates don’t feel pressure to make a deal, it doesn’t matter how long a lead time you have. Just look at the DGA deal. It took two weeks because the studios were under pressure to show that they could actually make a deal. The WGA deal took ten days because they were under pressure to save the Oscars, pilot season, and the back nine of the TV season. These negotiations have nothing to do with how long it takes to make a deal… it’s about pressure on the men with the money. By publicly weakening the SAG leadership, you remove that pressure, and hurt your union. Nice going, fellas.
You want a voice in SAG? Get involved. Run for office. Volunteer. Learn about the issues. I’m a WGA strike captain. I’m on committees at the Guild. I’m involved, and I have a very good TV and film career that doesn’t suffer from the time I spend working for my union. Imagine that? Had these guys bothered to be a part of the WGA strike they would have a much better understanding of how unions, labor law, and negotiations work. But, alas, their Q ratings probably wouldn’t have allowed it.
Comment by Guy Who Spent 13 Weeks Walking in Circles at Radford — February 13, 2008 @ 8:58 am
Here we go again, the Weinstein club is back at it again. How is it a bad thing that “A” list actors want SAG to start negotiating early? Is it a bad thing that it gives everyone some lead time to prepare their cases early, so as to avoid 11th hour terror? Explain why this is bad in calm, adult-like and intelligent terms please. I guess I’m ignorant.
Comment by Post Production Worker Bee — February 13, 2008 @ 9:17 am
“There’s nothing fishy at all. These A listers don’t want a useless strike, they want mature and reasonable negotiations to begin now. Hasn’t this town suffered enough? You militants won’t be happy until the industry is destroyed.”
Why don’t you just call the non A-listers commies and start another blacklisting? When you say “the A-listers don’t want a strike, they want mature and reasonable negotiations,” what you’re really saying is the issues that are important to most members of SAG, i.e. residuals, health benefits, etc., don’t matter a lick to the A-listers since they’re all multi-millionaires. However, that doesn’t change the fact that those issues are vitally important to most working actors who make relatively meager livings. No one’s trying to destroy the industry, the unions are just trying to pry their life-sustaining share of the pie from the insanely greedy hands of the AMPTP. Comments like yours are clearly meant to vilify the working class union members, and they’re just flat-out wrong.
Comment by Bill — February 13, 2008 @ 9:19 am
If SAG doesn’t negotiate a new contract before early April, an unofficial feature strike begins - in that no studio will start production on a movie shooting past June 30th, if there’s a possibility that all of their actors will walk out before it’s completed.
Whereas I doubt there will be an official strike, once the negotiating process passes April, people in this town will once again be out of work.
It would make sense to me, for the SAG neg com to try not to make the same mistakes as WGA and at least posture like they are aware of this and want to start negotiating as early as possible.
Comment by Matt — February 13, 2008 @ 9:20 am
Alan Rosenberg’s career is what is unfortunate about having him run the guild. Here’s a guy who is a frustrated actor, who gets a plum role once every ten years, has a wife who earns all the money in the family, and at every turn sounds like a disgruntled employee with a chip on his shoulder. NOT who should be representing the broad base of regularly working actors. SAG is f***ed up precisely because the vast majority of its members don’t earn their primary living from acting, so what do they care if there’s a strike. Whereas the actors who do work regularly and count on it to pay the bills, I’m sure want to go back to work if they can make the same types of gains in their contract that DGA and WGA did.
Comment by drogo — February 13, 2008 @ 9:22 am
The A Listers don’t have a clue about many things. Are they aware, when they are pushing Qualified Voting, that the President Of AFTRA, the person sitting in the #2 chair in Negotiations, would not qualify to vote for the TV Theatrical contract she is negotiating? Are they aware that most of the S.A.G Branch Board members would not qualify to vote for a contract they will help craft?
Is it not hypocritical to allow this?
How about fixing Board Service requirements FIRST?
I have attended the W+W Meetings. The people running them aren’t dummies.
They get it. The S.A.G deal will closely mirror the WGA deal, with (hopefully) some tweaks here and there.
For the A Listers to pull the rug out from under the process — they are hurting the rank and file.
Comment by straight shooter — February 13, 2008 @ 9:34 am
As one of the leaders behind the drive to implement affected member voting at SAG, I’d like to clarify something. This push is decidedly NOT about “elite” actors taking anything away from anyone—rather, it is a grass roots effort representing a broad spectrum of the Guild’s membership. Those supporting change certainly include top stars, but it is overwhelmingly a movement of rank and file actors who recognize that such a change is necessary to put SAG on its strongest footing heading into the upcoming contract negotiation. The list of over 900 supporters includes many who have noted that they themselves may be excluded from voting on given contracts, should a work-related voting requirement be adopted—but they also recognize that strengthening SAG in this way ultimately benefits all members by securing better contracts.
The WGA made such a change 15 years ago and it played no small part in the strength and solidarity so evident in their successfully concluded strike. By making sure that their bargaining position genuinely reflected the will of their working members, the WGA made it clear to the industry that they meant business. (In fact, the WGA reform far exceeded what we are proposing—that change involved an entire restructuring of membership classification, while our proposal focuses solely on the issue of contract voting).
We are looking forward to working in partnership with SAG leaders to craft and adopt a reasonable, flexible and inclusive standard to define those members who are affected by contract voting outcomes. By making sure that our contracts are ratified—or rejected—by those who bear the consequences, the Guild can enter the upcoming negotiation with renewed strength and the clear message that SAG means business.
Ned Vaughn
Comment by Ned Vaughn — February 13, 2008 @ 10:00 am
Maybe this idea of the wealthier of the membership being the only ones allowed to vote should be a model for National politics. We could have the weight of your vote in direct perportion to your W-2. Then it would only take a handful of the powerful to elect whoever it is that they wanted. Single welfare mothers? Nah! They’re to busy surviving to be bothered with the voting franchise anyway. We’d be doing them a favor, right?
Comment by nobody in particular — February 13, 2008 @ 10:13 am
wow, no amount of repeating facts will change what people insist on keeping in their mind
WGA DID TRY EARLY NEGOTIATIONS. THE STUDIOS JERKED THEM AROUND.
Comment by Stop perpetuating falsehoods — February 13, 2008 @ 10:13 am
Gotta love these passionate, opinionated, blow-hards who have so much to say, yet don’t have the courage to sign their names to their posts.
I, for one, am completely in favor of a “qualified voting” system for SAG. What incentive does the SAG member who does not earn a living as an “actor” have to NOT strike? Should their vote be equal to that of the SAG member who truly makes his or her living as an actor. Qualified voting is not undemocratic, it is realistic. It is, also, practiced by many other unions.
Chad Lowe
Comment by Chad Lowe — February 13, 2008 @ 10:18 am
Let’s be clear. The WGA Strike was necessary. And while the gains that were made were not entirely to everyone’s satisfaction amongst membership (as they rarely are in a negotiation) we cannot forget that gains WERE made with regard to the ever-evolving New Media/Digital arena. That said, the AMPTP lives and breathes by the process of “pattern bargaining.” Once a pattern has been established by one guild or union, the AMPTP tend not to deviate dramatically in any dealings with brother/sister unions or guilds. In the most recent industry labor turmoil, the DGA established the parameters by which AMPTP would deal with the WGA and SAG/AFTRA. The WGA made slightly more generous gains in the area of New Media; it’s possible that SAG/AFTRA may or may not do better in their negotiations. The AMPTP is not going to bend over and after a long, painful struggle that has cost the local economy hundreds of millions of dollars and the industry, itself, much blood, sweat, and personal/professional loss. Nor will there be a strong showing of solidarity from the DGA, the WGA (despite strong support from the actors, there’s too much pain and suffering already) and, most especially, IATSE. People want to get back to work and save their careers, their livelihoods, their homes… Nothing will be gained by a SAG strike nor even the threat of a strike. Hence, negotiations based upon the newly-established “patterns” are the only way to resolve any portent of a “SAG” strike quickly and with little pain. While those A-List members who are calling for a quick resolution to any labor dispute between SAG and the AMPTP do not represent the average working actor, neither does the domineering Hollywood Division of SAG. That sector of the Board is populated by vanity card holders and a significant percentage of performers who are not (and have not for some time been) earning a steady income in the industry. Yet this is the group that SAG National Director Doug Allen and President Alan Rosenberg are most responsive too. Mr. Allen repeatedly likes to point to tactics he employed in his days as the Assistant Executive Director of the NFL Player’s Association. Unfortunately, actors are not professional football players (although many HAVE played them on TV) and dealings in the film and television industry are a whole different ballgame. While not any more representative of “middle-class working actors” than the unemployed elected officials of the tempestuous Hollywood Division, the A-Listers are the individuals who get movies and series made and their counsel needs to be considered along with the rest of the SAG membership. While a show of strength at the bargaining table is necessary and gains in the area of New Media for the creative efforts of its membership are warranted, reason dictates that SAG (and AFTRA) engage in swift and reasonable negotiations immediately. Capitulate… never. Negotiate in good faith… now.
Comment by working class zero — February 13, 2008 @ 10:31 am
“Don’t LAT editors ever ask who was the actual author of a piece like this? I can’t get a straight answer.”
I seriously doubt it. I’ve worked for nonprofits all my life, and no newspaper editors ever asked who actually wrote the op-eds published by their leaders, as far as I know.
Comment by Reader — February 13, 2008 @ 11:00 am
A-Listers = Superdelegates
Of course their not commies…Their fascists if they think of intimidating the majority of SAG into negotiating what A-Listers/Studios think is right.
I agree with the guy who walked in circles around Radfod. The A-Listers only want the status quo, NOT what will benefit their fellow guild members…Heck even the 10% dropped by the picketers…Where the F-ck where the A-Listers????
BTW, how many of you schmucks are plants for the AMPTP/Studios? All this focus on SAG’s leadership Allen & Rosenberg and NOT on who actually instigated the just ended WGA strike…The Suits.
To the A-Listers, stop being a Limousine Liberal and actually get into the trenches of your guild…Or Are You Chicken?
Comment by P. Lee — February 13, 2008 @ 11:08 am
If they strike, I’m going to shoot myself. I’m not kidding. I’ll do it
Comment by John — February 13, 2008 @ 11:14 am
Good for the A-listers becoming involved - especially George Clooney for leading the way! Most people don’t realize how badly Doug Allen and Alan Rosenberg and their coterie think they need a strike in order to leave their mark on the Guild and thereby maintain and increase their hold on the union. It is a personal power issue with them, and it will be a disaster if the entire SAG membership - especially the mid-level working actors - doesn’t wake up to that fact and begin to involve themselves more in Guild affairs, become accurately informed, and vote in the upcoming elections this Summer.
Comment by boardmember — February 13, 2008 @ 11:33 am
It’s easy to tell by these postings who works and who doesn’t. Those of us who work steadily support qualified voting. Those who work a day or two each year don’t. As with the WGA, it’s very easy to yell “strike” when your income stream won’t be affected.
Comment by Michael — February 13, 2008 @ 11:35 am
Ned Vaughn -
Many actors are struggling actors, and just because they do not presently meet a minimum for earnings does not mean they are not sacrificing a lot in pursuit of jobs with the hope of being able to survive on acting earnings alone. They deserve to make their voices heard on wages that may be paid to them tomorrow or next week, month, or year, when they DO get a booking. DO NOT think it is ok to stratify actors by who is “making it” and who is not. Especially when AFTRA is only too happy to welcome people into its doors, undercut SAG, and consider everything it can to be under its jurisdiction. I (and I’m probably not alone) would prefer for all actors to be under SAG and Broadcasters/Hosts under AFTRA - but if SAG is going to treat struggling actors like second class citizens - then many would be inclined to tell SAG to suck it. I am planning a long career, I am working hard to get the auditions and to get the jobs I can, I am trying to break through the barriers - I do not need MY UNION, which I worked DAMN hard to join telling me I’m not good enough!
Chad Lowe -
Perhaps you can remember a time when you were struggling to start a career and you didn’t want to risk the fact that you made your opinion known having any impact on you making it through the many barriers that already existed. Or maybe being a Lowe, that kind of thing was never an issue for you. My opinion is legitimate, but this town is petty - otherwise I would put my name.
To the A List Actors -
What an assy/unclassy way to conduct themselves. Putting out ads to be responded to by already planned AMPTP ads. Could they get in bed with these people any faster - after the AMPTP are the ones that dragged the WGA strike out for their own purposes and on their own schedule. I expect more from people like Tom Hanks - isn’t he supposed to be the nicest guy in town. You are stabbing your union in the back. I agree with the board member’s statement - try showing up to a W & W meeting FIRST. Or how about actually finding out where your union is before trying to put public pressure to rush to a settlement. The DGA wording hasn’t even been crafted, let alone shared with SAG; the WGA wording needs to be handed over. Both contracts need to be analyzed and compared to the needs of SAG’s members.
Here is a link, I expect all the listed A-listers will be at the meetings following the PROCESS instead of just taking out ads and making personal phone calls:
http://www.sag.org/wages-working-conditions
This isn’t just useless of them, its actually hurtful. Very sad.
Comment by SAG Member — February 13, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
One more thing - wouldn’t SAG members have to vote to make such a huge change to the rules as not being able to vote below a certain income - 900 people on a silly petition is not an indicator that thousands will vote to give away their voting rights. That’s just stupid! Stop waisting the guild’s time and money with this nonsense.
Also, you take away my voting rights on key issues like contract negotiations - I assume that it will be ok for me not to pay my dues (but still be a member in good standing) - you take something from me, I take something from you. Or hey, what is the difference on going fi-core if I’m no longer able to vote. While I personally strongly oppose fi-core - you are opening a dangerous door. Stop trying to change the rules to suit yourselves. You let me worry about the money in my pocket from acting - I already do. If I am involved enough to cast a ballot, I am involved enough to count.
I was on the picket lines for writers, and I will be on the picket lines for SAG if that is necessary. So yes, even people who have other primary sources of income do have to make adjustments and sacrifices to fight for what they believe are fair wages for creatives.
Comment by SAG Member — February 13, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
OK, technically I’m one of those vanity SAG card holders. I also have my IATSE card, my AFTRA card and my Actor’s Equity card. But, right now my job is MOM. I don’t like the idea of paying dues, but not being able to vote on the future of my guild. I will be going back to work one day. I’m happiest doing theatre where I don’t even need to worry about residuals.
Since the primary breadwinner in my family is an IA guy that’s lucky enough to have a full time job (well it will be again once the current productions are back up), if there’s a strike authorization ballot sent out by SAG, I’ll be looking not for the Yes or No box to check, but for the No Way in Hell box. The WGA strike plowed through our savings and put us into credit card debt for the first time in 5 years. There’s no way I’ll vote to slit my family’s own throat over getting a residual check for $1.42 increased to $1.57 or whatever modest gain the next contract will bring to the working class actor that does a bit part on CSI. Background actors don’t get residuals, but hopefully make more than $1000 a year. Why should they be allowed to vote on contracts either following the qualified voting logic?
Comment by BTL Mom — February 13, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
Any actor who is pressuring anyone besides the conglomerates is undercutting his/her own union’s power.
Don’t be morons, “A-listers.” Shut up and let your negotiators make you the best deal possible.
Otherwise you’re going to be saddled with that effing 17-day window for the rest of your careers. And while you may not care about that today, are you so sure you won’t care in 15 years?
Comment by Ashley Gable — February 13, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
A simple question for SAG members. Who will vote for them ever again for awards if they take actions that hurt the negotiations?
Comment by Concerned — February 13, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
“WGA DID TRY EARLY NEGOTIATIONS. THE STUDIOS JERKED THEM AROUND.
Comment by Stop perpetuating falsehoods”
Actually, Stop perpetuating falsehoods, it was the Evil Empire that proposed starting negotiations in Jan 07. Young vetoed that and refused to negotiate before July 07. And then, negotiations adjorned for 6 weeks because of the WGA elections.
I’m not criticising that–sometimes pressure gets the best deal. And sometimes not.
But it was the WGA who delated negotiations between Janurary and July.
So, please, Stop perpetuating falsehoods, stop perpetuating falsehoods.
Comment by Sarcastic Cynic — February 13, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
Wow, Chad Lowe is a real snot.
Comment by Hmmm — February 13, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
Wow it didn’t take long for the paranoia to return…
Comment by Paid Shill Pulling Early Duty — February 13, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
wow. It didn’t long for the vilification to start. How soon before the AMPTP’s sockpuppets start calling Alan Rosenberg an “organizer”?
Comment by writer/director — February 13, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
Chad wrote: “What incentive does the SAG member who does not earn a living as an “actor” have to NOT strike?”
How about the fact that they won’t be able to have a chance at earning a living if there is a strike and no work is available. The question I have for you is what incentive does an A list actor have for working to get a fair contract for all when they get their own high priced deal every time they work.
While we’re at it, why not raise the bar on qualified voting and make it so only those who are making more than $1 million a picture or star on a network sitcom can vote?
Or better yet, gather up your elite friends who are lucky enough to make a living as an actor (and please don’t be naive enough to think that those who earn a living are “better” actors than those who don’t) and form your own union. Because when SAG was formed it was to represent ALL actors.
Jenny
Comment by Jenny — February 13, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
How do the “out of work” actors think they will benefit from another strike or even a de facto strike when the smaller and mid-sized agencies and managers that represent them go out of business? Agents and managers are being let go and taking pay cuts. Assistants have been fired. The representation business will look like the conglomerate studio business. This trend has been happening for several years. I doubt that the actors making uder $ 7,500 a year are represented by CAA, WMA, UTA, ICM or Endeavor. Who will represent “development talent” if the smaller agencies disappear?
Comment by representation — February 13, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
It’s inconceivable that A-listers would be undercutting their own union this way. Our leaders were running scared from private threats from Leno and the showrunners, but at least they didn’t have to face this kind of ignorant, public undercutting from the selfish bastards.
Chad, sorry to tell you but “earning a living as an actor” means just that, I don’t think you’re going to be able to make the case that the alimony you receive from a working actor or loans from your brother qualifify you.
Comment by come on — February 13, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
i am by no means a fan of the congloms that now own hollywood. that said, they DO pay the bills.
the people who post, for the most part, on this blog, are blissful in their anger, and ignorant of the realities of our business these days.
shut the fuck up about striking, and workers rights and how you are being squeezed.
instead of striking, why dont you ask your unions to actually do their job, and get involved in reviewing the oppressive contracts for series, for example, that are presented to actors these days, as take it or leave it. lobby to make changes to protect their members from possibly illegal exclusivity provisions.
grow up people and get real.
Comment by concerned — February 14, 2008 @ 6:07 am
Dear “Come On”,
Is that your real name? Or, are you a rapper? Just curious.
Chad Lowe
P.S. What’s your point?
Comment by chad Lowe — February 14, 2008 @ 9:49 am
All right Chad, I admit it was a cheap crack, however, your putting “actor” in quotes was also obnoxious. Just because someone doesn’t meet the $7500/yr threshold doesn’t mean he isn’t a real actor, hell, it doesn’t even mean he or she is not making his or her living as an actor (there’s this thing called “theater” for example). I’m not even an actor, I’m a writer, but I respect actors and you shouldn’t be slagging them like that. My point is that treating felllow union members with contempt opens up a can of worms where one’s own resume and connections (guess what? Michael Douglas probably started out with a greater chance at booking jobs than someone completely unknown) will also be dissected and that is disrespectful, unnecessary and helps nobody.
Comment by come on — February 14, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
For the record, I have great respect for anyone who has the courage to pursue a career as an actor (or writer, for that matter). I know the commitment, focus and sacrifice that it takes. Not to mention constantly having to confront rejection. I do not measure the worth or potential of any actor by how much money he or she earns. More often than not, the best actor for the role does not always get the role. It is a business after all. It’s taken me nearly 25 years to come to terms with this. (Yes, I will admit that I am a little thick, but not a snot…)
Furthermore, I do not hold my fellow union members in contempt. On the contrary, my position is that all my fellow SAG members would be better served in this business if we adopted a qualified voting system. This may not be popular, but it is my opinion, and I stand by it.
Comment by chad Lowe — February 14, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
I have a great idea…
How about instituting a “Million Dollar Threshold”?
Dues for actors making over 1 mil per year should be a flat 1%. I’m sick and tired of paying 1000% more in dues percentage wise than the A-list actors. 1% is drop in the bucket for them. Use the extra money to help with insurance costs
Comment by Craig — February 16, 2008 @ 10:05 am
I’ve heard two very democratic and comments recently about this..
“Why put the fate of the entertainment industry in the hands of people who have nothing to lose?”
“Make sure that the contracts are ratified—or rejected—by those who bear the consequences… ”
Seems to make sense doesn’t it? As an IATSE member, I’ve had no power to influence the last 4 months of work stoppage.. I never undermined WGA members right to a better contract , I supported them.
These TACTICS by the union members in WGA and SAG that aren’t affected every day by the consequences are what I find so very disgusting, selfish and un-American.
Comment by Ben Huges — March 1, 2008 @ 10:04 am
Qualified voting makes sense. If you have no economic stake in the health of an industry, why should you be able to determine its direction. 80,000 of 120,000 SAG members make less than $1000 per year in the industry and THEY should determine its fate? Please!
Comment by Reality Check — March 31, 2008 @ 5:22 am
The assholes aren’t the A list actors, it’s SAG for considering another strike. After the 2000 commercial strike and our not being able to cross lines, my career became touch and go. SAG opened the ranks to anyone who could get 3 vouchers and pee straight, then realized that too many were qualifying for benefits, so they started raising the bar. Production left town, actors who wouldn’t be caught dead doing episodics were working and are still working at taking guest roles away from me and friends of mine, at scale wages. What’s to gain from another strike, more reality programing, run away production, less work for everyone? Those of you who want to strike, I hope you enjoy some other line of work, because that’s where you’ll be… order please.
Comment by Frank — May 8, 2008 @ 3:48 pm