EXCLUSIVE (Keep refreshing for latest updates): I can now report that the negotiations between the Screen Actors Guild and the AMPTP are not making any progress with both sides very far apart and very frustrated. Negotiators for the Hollywood CEOs are privately making it clear they plan to make a deal first with AFTRA in order to use that as a wedge to soften up SAG. And, get this -- my sources tell me that the AMPTP is now prepared to wait out SAG for a deal until as late as mid-July. Which means the Big Media moguls are virtually daring SAG to strike when its contract expires the end of June.
I am, frankly, appalled. It's already clear that this week's move by the AMPTP to delay the start of talks with AFTRA is an utter sham. A game plan is already in place, just like the one that the AMPTP worked up to try to foil the WGA's contract demands. For that scenario, the AMPTP used the DGA to soften up the WGA. In the end, the WGA-AMPTP deal was incrementally better but not by much.
The AMPTP is furious that SAG negotiators are intent on getting a better deal for its actor members than the WGA's or the DGA's on formulas for both New Media and also DVD residuals.
Here's what's happened so far as of the 9th day of bargaining. Both sides have presented their terms. SAG has now responded to the AMPTP's New Media proposals, which I understand are simply a restatement of the DGA and WGA deals. Both Peter Chernin and Bob Iger in backchannel talks with SAG leadership, including during a session as recently as the 2nd week in April, have been repeatedly saying that the studios and networks won't budge on those previously agreed-to numbers. In turn, the SAG leadership insist that the actors have different needs than either the writers or directors -- and that, as a result, SAG will not back down from revisiting the DVD residual formulas or substantially bettering the New Media numbers as well.
I'm told the SAG negotiators did spend a day and a half recently posing questions to the AMPTP side in order to present their initial counterproposals. But I'm told the AMPTP thinks those counterproposals offer only glacial movement from SAG's original proposals. In turn, the AMPTP came back with its own set of questions for SAG. But I understand that only the barest of movement by the studios and networks' latest offer is anticipated.
The result is a near-stalemate at this early juncture. The AMPTP, I'm told, doesn't anticipate any substantial movement in the talks next week -- so I'm not sure why the network and studio negotiators even bothered to ask AFTRA to delay the start of their negotiations. Unless it was to create artificial drama and present SAG in the worst possible light, which is exactly what the AMPTP did over and over with the WGA.
I predict that, after May 5th, the AMPTP will put the SAG talks on a de facto hiatus and focus instead on making a quick and far less costly agreement with AFTRA which, after all, has a long history of making less lucrative deals for actors with the networks and studios. Once that's done, Hollywood will surely have to suffer during what will be a long period of uncertainty while the AMPTP either stays away from the bargaining table -- again, just like it did with the WGA -- or conducts what can only be termed disingenuous negotiating. All the while, of course, the AMPTP PR machinery will blame SAG for "wanting" to bring the Industry to another grinding halt.
But let's be perfectly clear about what's fact and what's fiction. And the fact is that the AMPTP right now is already prepared not to close a deal with SAG until, my sources say, even as late as the middle of July. I do hope that SAG can restrain itself when its contract expires at the end of June and hold off calling a strike for a reasonable period after that. Still, with that kind of uncertainty hanging over the entertainment business, I forsee more turmoil.
But there's no need for that. If the networks and studios want to demonstrate their seriousness right now, they will have Chernin and Iger immediately step in and take over the negotiations with SAG. Those two in the end made the deal with the writers, and they can make the deal with the biggest actors union, too. What much smaller AFTRA does or doesn't do with its handful of primetime scripted network shows (and no motion pictures) will have no effect on the SAG leadership, trust me. What could have an efect is if IATSE's Tom Short gets involved and, for once, puts pressure on Chernin, Iger, et al, to act in a more timely fashion. After all, Short's membership will only suffer otherwise. There's no good reason to wait until July. The moguls will still have to partially meet SAG's demands sooner or later because time is simply on the side of the big actors union as long as it doesn't implement a strike. Make a deal and make it now.
UPDATE: SAG JUST SENT TO MEMBERS ITS 2008 CONTRACT REPORT #2 ABOUT NEW MEDIA (IT'S A FOLLOW-UP TO #1 ABOUT MIDDLE INCOME ACTORS):
SAG CONTRACT 2008 REPORT
Number 2 — New Media
April 24, 2008
Why Is New Media Important To Actors?
Today 134 million Americans (or 3 in 4 Internet users) view online videos each month. This means over 9 billion videos are watched online per month. YouTube alone has over 200 million unique visitors every month. This year the leading 100 media companies will realize an estimated $20.7 billion in Internet revenue. And advertisers will spend $2.9 billion annually on online video ads by 2010. All this adds up to tremendous opportunities for actors.What is the current state of affairs in new media?
• This season some shows are being streamed live multiple times before the episode is scheduled to broadcast.
• Some series have their entire catalog of episodes available for ad supported streaming.
• Ad supported streams, downloads for rental and electronic sell through of feature films are now available.
• Some made-for new media content is moving to broadcast television.
• Made-for new media content is being created to complement the coming fall broadcast lineup.
• Subscription services are offering unlimited streams of their television and film catalogs to subscribers.
• Producers are setting up new studio systems for the creation and distribution of new media content.
• Producers are editing library content down to snack size pieces for new media distribution.
Here’s what we are asking for:
1. Reasonable minimums for actors’ work in content made-for new media.
2. Reasonable residuals for actors’ work in content made-for new media.
3. Reasonable residuals for actors’ work in content moved over from traditional media to new media.
4. Reasonable protections and compensation for actors’ work moved over from new media to traditional media.What About Jurisdiction in New Media?
SAG is not asking for jurisdiction in new media to be granted by the AMPTP because we already have jurisdiction. In fact, through our new media organizing efforts, we have already signed over 400 independent producers to SAG new media contracts and the number is growing daily.Please note that the above is not intended to be an exhaustive list of our proposals. It is just intended to keep you informed of the highlights. We will keep you apprised of developments as the negotiation process continues. Check SAG 24/7 website at http://www.sag.org/contract-2008-tvtheatrical-negotiations. Watch for Contract Report No. 3 on residuals coming to you Friday, April 25.
Here we go again…
Comment by Adam — April 24, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
Being forced to pay AFTRA dues every year and never working AFTRA contracts, as well as the piddly rate you DO get when you get an AFTRA job is bad enough, but are they really content to be used like this by the AMPTP to undermine the SAG position? And can SAG get it together and make peace? Can my unions PLEASE get it together and work as one? Or do I need to move to Omaha and teach cold reading.
Comment by Felicia — April 24, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
Watching network tv start to use AFTRA talent…..
Waiting for SAG to say if you’re dual member you can’t do that……
(Not) looking forward to more AMPTP is the devil articles…..
Any writers care to make a reality show out of this?
Comment by Enough — April 24, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
Best of luck, SAG. May you have the character and fortitude to accomplish what we writers did not. Hold fast.
Comment by Ruthie — April 24, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
Oh Doug and Alan,
You are so prophetic. I’m glad you spent a year to dump AFTRA and decided to do this on your own. You really show the strategic thinking of the Children’s Crusade.
Comment by Winona — April 24, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
I hope you’re happy AFTRA. You’ve sold every actor down the river. Not to mention what you will do to everyone employed by this industry. You could have stood by SAG’s side and tried to do what is in the best interest of ALL actors, but you’re just saving your own ass. I am throughly disgusted with you. This is NOT the time to take the crumbs the AMPTP will dole out to you and to thank them for it, it is a time to stand up for your FAIR share. The fair rate of a product we help create. They just distribute it. One needs the other.
Peggy Lane O’Rourke
Comment by Peggy Lane O'Rourke — April 24, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
For that scenario, the AMPTP used the DGA to soften up the WGA.
Someone tell “Kevin.”
In the end, the WGA-AMPTP deal was incrementally better but not by much.
Indeed. The DGA settled for a shit donut, but the WGA held out till it was glazed.
Comment by Writer Bob — April 24, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
So how many days this time around? 25? 50? 100, again? Possibly more? Will the gains made in striking, ever make up for the time striking? Anyone?
Comment by sam — April 24, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
Well that’s pattern bagaining for you. A strike will not gain anything this time and the whole town will lose again. Soory SAG, but there will not be a better deal than WGA and DGA got - not gonna happen as much I wish it would. Now how far are you gonna go and will you really strike? Once again there is nothing the rest of us in the industry can do but watch and lose with you. Jeez…..
Comment by Bill — April 24, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
“Writer Bob”, I have already heard the opinion about the DGA negotiations from earlier this year. It doesn’t match with the facts. And it’s not the way the working crews I have served with over the past month feel about the situation. But you’re entitled to share Nikki’s opinion and to have your own.
I am still waiting, now almost two months later, for you to respond to a simple question: If you feel that the DGA should not have begun its negotiations, thus ending the WGA/AMPTP impasse and making it possible for the town to get back to work, then what is your constructive alternative?
The AMPTP was prepared to continue negotiating once the demands about reality, animation, independent contracting and the “no strike” clause came off the table. When the WGA agreed to take those items off, negotiations continued. What solution do you have that could have restarted the talks sooner, other than the WGA taking them off the table sooner? Or did you prefer to remain on strike indefinitely? Can you provide any answer to this?
Comment by Kevin — April 24, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
There is still something up here that none of us are aware of. The fact that the AMPTP would be willing to risk a world of scorn and this time probably Government intervention and investigations by setting off another hugely ruinous strike indicates to me they are privy to information that makes this a worthwhile calculated risk.
I have been racking my brain since our strike trying to figure out what the hell they are up to and I can come up with two scenarios.
1) The AMPTP has some set of financial projections that tell it the internet is about to become an even more wildly successful cash cow and the greedy bastards who run the studios/networks are DETERMINED to keep all the money for themselves, or
2) They are sitting on some as-yet-unannounced delivery method (almost instant streaming?) and they have to get all their ducks in a row (ie fuck the talent) before they announce it.
What else could it be? Guys like Redstone and Moonves and Murdoch are not stupid - they are pricks but they’re not stupid.
They wouldn’t be trying to start another strike unless they had some sinister ulterior motive.
There is a Dark Lord here who has yet to reveal himself….
Comment by anotherWGAmember — April 24, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
AnotherWGAMember-
You didn’t happen to write ‘Conspiracy Theory,’ did you?
Or maybe ‘National Treasure 2′?
But I assure you, you are in the right guild. Active imagination, you. Any thoughts on the Kennedy Assassination?
Comment by Anonymous — April 24, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
WGAmember you are a paranoid fool. The studios simply do not want to give away pre-break residuals to a bunch of people who are overpaid in the first place.
Comment by prodco — April 24, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
As a student of military history since the tender age of 12, I’m 29 now, and the military arts boil down to a simple concept: identifying risks and opportunities to minimize the former and exploit the latter as much as possible.
The largest risks come from your fifth-columnists, Quislings, Benedict Arnolds, back-stabbers, AMPTP ass-kissers or whatever you may wish to term them. This is your greatest threat in the short- and medium-term to the success of any strike; in the long term, attrition has to be factored in.
The greatest threat in the short-term comes from your so-called A-list talent. The Cruises, Pitts, Clooneys, Hanks, etc. Tom Hanks only got angsty with the WGA strike when the precious Academy Awards were threatened, but awards season won’t be coming around again till next year, which means there would be less leverage as far as TV goes. However, films are another matter.
Could the AMPTP strategy be to uncouple the TV and Film contract and negotiate for the celluloid medium and over-air or cable broadcasts seperately? Thereby hoping to split SAG between the movie actors and the TV actors?
I also believe that the A-listers may need to be put in their places; especially the one’s who paid to run that ad in that obviously coordinated move with the Studios. They need to be reminded that they may have a lot of greenbacks, but they are vastly outnumbered by the rank-and-file actors. I humbly suggest that they be challenged to each put XXX,XXX or XX,XXX dollars into a strike fund.
Comment by RDW — April 24, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
Come on kids, can’t we all just get along. This is becoming a painful exercise in banality.
Sure everybody wants to make more money but at what cost?
Will SAG strike over not getting any increase in DVD?
Yes.
Can SAG forget about the window on new media for promotions and just focus on the DVD increase.
It must.
We all know that if SAG gets a DVD increase that will trigger favored nation clauses in the DGA and WGA contracts so let us not fool ourselves. The AMPTP will never allow that to happen without a World War.
The AMPTP will hold out for a year if SAG calls a strike. The studios and network will begin to dip into its libraries; re-edit, re-master, re-hype old movies blockbuster, more reality programming and new AFTRA primetime soap operas to make money. The Spanish Novelas will be remade with American actors.
Mark my words; this is where Ugly Betty came from and there will be others.
A DVD increase is not worth closing this town down indefinitely in a strike. The pennies increase on a DVD deal is not worth a nuclear winter.
Here is my suggestion to pay for the SAG DVD increase — let the consumer pay an extra purchase price for every new DVD sold. Instead of $24.99 make it $25.05 and build in a 6 cents increase for all DVD and movie rentals.
SAG,AFTRA & WGA member
Comment by Chris Jackson — April 24, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
Here we go again, indeed.
While I understand that SAG needs to look out for it’s members and not get screwed, very few of your friendly neighborhood crew folks are going to be able to save up enough to make it through another strike.
While we support any union members trying to fight the good fight, I think I can speak for all the below-the-line workers when I say that I hope this doesn’t drag out for so long.
Comment by Peggy Archer — April 24, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
Here is what I said yesterday:
Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if the SAG struck July 1 or August 31. This is turning into a major problem for the AMPTP. If they think that they can get massive rollbacks just by ratifying a AFTRA contract (though members would love to leave the guild) and then get SAG to commit to a crummy deal, they have to be kidding themselves. Though I would personally wait until the middle to end of August to strike in order to put max pressure on the Emmys, a July strike has its advantages because Congress doesn’t want to see another Hollywood strike, but if that happens, the AMPTP is up a creek without a paddle.
Comment by Jessy S. — April 24, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
Totally agree with Peggy’s comment above. AFTRA looks like Fredo in this situation. They’ve sold everyone out.
Comment by Danny — April 24, 2008 @ 11:41 pm
AnotherWGAmember -
I don’t think the AMPTP is sitting on anything we don’t know about. Go back and read Justine Bateman’s piece over at United Hollywood. We know they’re well on their way to migrating content to the Internet. We know about IPTV. We know their plan is to eventually replace cable television channels with Internet portals like hulu.com. The 2.0 or 3.0 versions of those sites will use IPTV to pump the content through the Internet to our big screen HD televisions.
We know that Netflix cut a deal with LG to deliver their rental library to subscribers through a set-top box connected to the Internet. Blockbuster just announced they’re me-tooing that. Even the porn industry is getting into that game, with the Wildfyre box. That last one could be a backdoor for other companies to distribute their content as well. The box doesn’t care about the rating of the content.
Nikki’s absolutely right. SAG’s going to hold fast, because we know the future of the guild is at stake. The WGA - with all due respect and love for Patric Verrone and the membership - will very likely have to strike again in less than three years just to make the moguls match what the writers used to get from television and DVD before the migration to the Internet, and it will again be a make-or-break for the guild. SAG knows this, and we’d rather the actors set a strong New Media standard with the moguls now, rather than having to revisit this and strike over it again and again.
It is also vital to add that the structure of the actors’ New Media proposal is quite reasonable. We are willing to share in the risks as well as the rewards. We’re truly interested in seeing the AMPTP genuinely partner up with us on this, to the benefit of not just the talent, but the long-term viability of the entire industry.
Comment by mheister — April 24, 2008 @ 11:41 pm
Oh Christ, here we go again. This site is like a car wreck with body parts strewn about - you know you should turn away and keep driving, but you just have to stop and watch the paramedics take care of the carnage.
I can’t wait to see the terms “shill” and “troll” thrown around by unemployed actors and the writers that are still bitter.
Why should the AMPTP give SAG a better deal than they gave DGA and WGA? It doesn’t make sense. But of course, THEY are the bad guys.
Give it a rest, and accept the deal SAG.
Comment by Frank Grimes — April 25, 2008 @ 7:27 am
When I was walking the picket line during the writer’s strike.. a guy made a point about how ALL large corporations were connected, an overall strategy when it came to union-busting,and other issues, not just entertainment companies. we need to look at what redstone, et all are doing in a larger context, and see where it fits in to the the larger puzzle. I think our focus is too narrow.
Comment by VOguy — April 25, 2008 @ 7:39 am
anotherWGAmember…
Content providers (actors / directors / writers) don’t get a CENT in this town unless the other side is forced to give it up… if it’s locked in the contract as a minimum, or if you’re so valuable to the project that you’re worth it to them to cough up more to get you.
Back when VHS came out they called it a ‘new technology’ that needed ’study’ in order to short-change the content providers. It was the same with DVD… they said they’d bump up the payments later on when the industry matured - but they never did. It’s just the same old pattern where the studios claim poverty and the need to develop a new technology - all the way to the bank. Calling something a ‘non starter’ is just another negotiation tactic. Anything is negotiable.
The only difference this time is that the content providers have seen this before and they’re not buying it… except for AFTRA - they’ll take 5 cents on the dollar to sell out their members anytime to get jurisdiction. Hopefully the actors are wise to that too and will demand better from AFTRA this year.
Comment by David Sobolov — April 25, 2008 @ 9:28 am
I work in the film industry. Or at least I used to. July? I’ll be homeless by then.
Comment by Ryan — April 25, 2008 @ 10:04 am
Jesse S,
You are quoting your own ignorant comment about how the AMPTP cannot reject SAG’s proposals. So what exactly are those proposals??? I notice you didn’t bother to address that question in the other thread. So let’s try it again, I challenge you to inform us all WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE PROPOSALS THAT ARE SO REASONABLE?
(asking for reasonable increases is NOT a proposal it is a PR statement, PROPOSALS have figures)
Comment by Intrigued — April 25, 2008 @ 10:14 am
AFTRA members — please, please contact your leadership and ask them to present a united front with SAG against the AMPTP. It’s the only way you’re going to get anything better than the shit deal we writers settled for.
Otherwise Nikki is right — the AMPTP is going to use AFTRA to soften up SAG just as it used the DGA to soften up the writers. Of course they’re going to do that — it’s a great strategy that allowed the Companies to make a terrific deal for themselves even in the face of a pretty well-run strike.
Speak up to your leadership or you can kiss a bunch of hard-earned money goodbye for the next 20 years.
Comment by Ashley Gable — April 25, 2008 @ 10:24 am
Oh, for the love of…
Why can’t the studios just break with the unions and be done with it?
I wish they would all issue a joint statement saying they no longer recognize ANY union and that everyone is work for hire. Period.
You know, like 90% of the rest of the buisinesses in this country.
I’m tired of a few thousand people having the power to put HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS out of work.
Unions are WORTHLESS. Learn it, Live it, Love it.
Comment by Joe Cool — April 25, 2008 @ 10:33 am
Ashley Gable,
LMAO at you calling the WGA strike “well-run” in the same post that you say the WGA settled for a “shit deal”.
Considering some of your other posts I believe you don’t see what’s wrong with making those two statements, but anybody with good sense does. Your blind support of everything the WGA leadership does truly blinds your objectivity.
(fyi, the same people responsible for running the wga strike are the same ones responsible for the deal you settled for. and you can blame DGA all you want for the result of deal (and that’s fine, but if your leadership didn’t factor the DGA into their strike plan then it wasn’t “well-run”))
Comment by Intrigued — April 25, 2008 @ 10:48 am
A SAG strike is utterly irresponsible if SAG has no real hope and none of our unions on their own have any real hope, not SAG, not AFTRA not the DGA or the WGA, etc. That any one of these unions think they alone have a leg to stand on in the face of the AMPTP (a path that leads directly to RUPERT MURDOCH) is self destructively deluded.
In this day and age it is a ridiculous crusade. All unions in every area involved in making film and television productions (from celebrities, editors, boom operators, teamsters, directors, writers, P.A.s, the whole sha-bang) need to ban together and strike at once for a better deal for each player or be ready to abandon these companies and pursue private investors and other avenues of taking art and entertainment to the world.
The only thing we have that the AMPTP does not is that we are the artists, the creators (we need to be making more ART and entertainment of real value which will always be in demand). It is much harder and takes much more skill to do what we do than to do what they do. Getting money and finding a way to the people does not take a genius enterprise.
The bottom line is we need to rethink our union’s strategies in the face of advanced capitalism/corporatism.
By the way, this strategy the AMPTP is using is the same psychological strategy used in the ghettos and in jails. If you put two or more groups of oppressed people (lets say struggling African Americans and Latinos, or struggling members of SAG and AFTRA) in one spot they will turn on each other before they turn on their oppressors.
Comment by Keven — April 25, 2008 @ 11:34 am
Intrigued, the general proposals are listed in with what Nikki posted in the past few days. Granted, calling for an increase in something isn’t a specific proposal, but it is still a proposal.
It is like if I were the President of the Bloggers International Union and Nikki was a member, but LA Weekly was fighting her and demanding an decrease in the number of “Toldya’s” in her postings. Let’s say that I, as President, said to Matt Drudge, “I told LA Weekly that Nikki deserves an increase in the number of “Toldya’s” allowed.” Even if I didn’t give him a specific number, that is still a proposal.
Mheister, you are usually right in your postings, but if SAG gets a better contract than WGA, the WGA will strike in three years to improve the SAG terms. We know that since the WGA had to strike this past year in order to get, in the words of some people here, “a less than perfect contract.”
Comment by Jessy S. — April 25, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
Keven, SAG and AFTRA both turned on each other already. At this stage, SAG is ready to turn on AMPTP while AFTRA is sitting on the sidelines, or in this case, in the theater eating popcorn while enjoying the show being put on between SAG and the AMPTP.
Comment by Jessy S. — April 25, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
AMPTP will not budge on the DVD thing. They just won’t open that bank vault. They didn’t do it for the WGA, the DGA, or IA. They won’t for SAG. They proved to the world (shareholders) and their own egos (bigger) that they “won”. So SAG, decide whether you want to start walking in circles. The rest of us, just now getting back to work, are uk-fayed.
Comment by Julius Fort — April 25, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
Jesse S.,
LOL. What has been released in SAG’s PR statements and posted here ARE NOT PROPOSALS. How in the hell can the AMPTP accept or reject REASONABLE? I guess you think SAG walks into negotiations and says we want reasonable increase in minimum salaries, AMPTP says ok we accept. Then it is later confirmed that the AMPTP raises minimum salaries by $1 (what they deemed reasonable). GTFOH, not only do you not have any idea what SAG’s proposals actual are, you have proven you don’t even know what a proposal is.
If you could read and coprehend SAG even mentions at the end of the statement that it is not a proposal but rather a list highlights to keep members (partially) informed. “Please note that the above is not intended to be an exhaustive list of our proposals. It is just intended to keep you informed of the highlights.” quoted from SAG.
Comment by Intrigued — April 25, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
I don’t want to rain on any optimists’ parade, though at this point, I think the parade consists of a couple of sullen children on rusty Schwinns.
But look at the results of the WGA strike. They fought hard, they were a united front, they held out as long as they could. And they got approximately the same thing as they probably would have if they’d never struck. Of course, Verrone et al. sold it as a miraculous victory, and the AMPTP pretended that they gave away the store, but one needs merely to look at the conditions of the deal (and how the AMPTP is already exploiting it to its full benefit) to see the truth of the matter.
New Media is still a red herring. Old Media is paying the bills for the foreseeable future. Disagree? Don’t ask me; ask the AMPTP. Any increase in DVD residuals was a nonstarter for them. Wouldn’t move a single inch. Wouldn’t even talk about ANYTHING ELSE until it was taken off the table. New Media? Sure, they were happy to wheel and deal. Keep in mind that the moguls have access to a lot more accountants, business gurus, prophets, soothsayers, swamis and so forth than the writers or actors ever will. If they’re clinging to physical media for dear life and giving up concessions in other areas, that should send a pretty clear message.
Comment by Nick — April 25, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
Jessy S, SAG has a no strike clause which relinquishes a union’s only major strength, the strength to strike when it serves the union, not AMPTP.
SAG is not strong. It is not.
And both SAG and AFTRA are responsible for not aligning their interests and strengths.
It is weak minded, weak willed. Our unions should be ashamed. And so should we. We need to work to make our unions strong.
Possible suggestion: don’t pay your dues to any union to which you belong until they listen and work together, for the real interests of their members.
Comment by Keven — April 25, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
Intrigued, I don’t really want to get into a flaming war, but you leave me no choice to respond to you again.
I don’t know where you got this that the SAG hasn’t published their proposals. Now I do know that these don’t have any number to them, but they are still proposals. No guild/union isn’t going to release numbers until a deal is reached.
It would be foolish and sucidial to do so because the AMPTP members are wolves. If the SAG publishes exact numbers right now, AMPTP members can take them to the trades and say that the SAG is unfair and all sorts of dirty tricks so they can try to convince the public that CBS, NBC, Disney, ect… are in the red and that all actors are better paid than people in pro sports. These are proposal highlights that are intended to keep everybody informed on the progress of negotiations.
Keven, where did you hear that SAG has a no strike clause? Last I heard, the SAG was united with the writers during their strike to the point that they made “speechless” videos and even walked the picket line whenever possible. In addition, most actors avoided struck shows when late night TV came back on the air.
Comment by Jessy S. — April 25, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
I should first say that I am not “Keven”, who holds separate views from mine. (Not a slam on him or her - just showing that I am not having a spelling problem.)
Jessy S,
I need to reiterate a post I tried to make here in another thread. PLEASE take the time to research the material you are discussing here. SAG absolutely has a “no strike” clause in their contract. The SAG leadership referenced this during their support for the WGA strike, telling their members to honor their contracts but come out to the picket lines when they weren’t working. Appearing on late night TV shows is a choice that the individual actor can make as part of their promotion of current shows or just for self promotion. Not appearing on those shows was an individual choice. But showing up on set when cast in a role (as 99+% of all actors did during the WGA strike) is not a matter of choice. If the actor fails to appear for their call, they could be fired for cause and be considered in violation of their contract.
Comment by Kevin — April 25, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
Jesse S,
I see you refuse to just admit you were wrong. In your orignial statement you said that SAG’s proposals were reasonable. But now you clearly admit that you don’t what the proposals are because they would never release that information. DOH! Are you starting to realize how dumb it was of you to say that SAG’s proposals are fair??? A) You don’t know what the proposals are and B) You concede they would never release that information. But thanks for proving my point in a roundabout way, you could have just said simply “yes intrigued you are right I do not know what SAG’s proposals are and therefore am in no position to judge whether they are fair or reasonable”.
Comment by Intrigued — April 25, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
Jesse S said: “Keven, where did you hear that SAG has a no strike clause? Last I heard, the SAG was united with the writers during their strike to the point that they made “speechless” videos and even walked the picket line whenever possible. In addition, most actors avoided struck shows when late night TV came back on the air.”
Are you serious? Do you not know what a strike is? Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with a strike.
Let me guess you are not part of SAG but rather an over zealous fanboy?
Comment by Intrigued — April 25, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
“Unions are WORTHLESS. Learn it, Live it, Love it.”
Comment by Joe Cool
Go back to WalMart and clock in at your Mickey D’s job and wait for precious Dubya to look out for ya. You know you’ll be treated with respect with your representaion like the “rest of the country”. Good night and good luck moron.
Comment by Bill — April 25, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
SAG strongly supported the WGA strike, but could not call a sympathy strike because of the no-strike clause in its contract.
It would be nice if our negotiators could get that one removed while we’re working for the other proposal points.
Comment by mheister — April 25, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
Yes, SAG has a “no strike clause”. Imagine if all those celebrities who made the “speechless” videos would have been required by their union to walk off their shows and movies along with the writers? The strike would have been over in a week.
But a “no strike clause” means that if the writers strike, actors cannot, as decreed by our own unions. This is so the AMPTP is not overly inconvenienced. This is inane.
So is the fact that the WGA, DGA and SAG contracts are up for renegotiations at different times. It takes all of us to do what we do. We should all not merely be ALLOWED, but be REQUIRED by our unions to support each other. We should NEGOTIATE and STRIKE TOGETHER. Sorry for the caps but this is common sense to unions all over the rest of the world.
And one more thing. I am an active dues paying member of these unions. And unions are formed for the sole purpose of protecting their members, the workers. However, as someone pointed out here, there is no choice about joining. You are required to join these unions to get legitimate work in our field. That said, these unions do nothing to help you find work once you have joined. And if you should find it so difficult to get work that you make the painful decision to go fi-core, you are then blacklisted (as we have seen with the WGA’s latest list publicly condemning their members who went fi-core).
I’m just trying to see the reasoning here to it’s logical conclusion:
1)We are forced to join a union to get legitimate work.
2)When we have struggled to be allowed in, and have paid our dues and still cannot find legitimate work, we are bullied and blacklisted if we must make the choice to go fi-core in order to find work.
3)Our unions have allowed clauses in our contracts to insure that the AMPTP will not be overly inconvenienced if our union should require us to strike.
4)We, the workers, strike, loose everything… and I just got a bill in the mail asking for a considerable amount of money for dues.
I am seriously wondering …Who’s looking out for us?
Comment by Keven (with an 'e') — April 25, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
Keven,
“We should all not merely be ALLOWED, but be REQUIRED by our unions to support each other.”
NF, these difficult situation posts really bring out the crackpots, no?
Required… to value others’ strikes? Then what happens when said strikes are of little to no merits? I know such a thought is unthinkable, as all the WGA members here are too busy hearing cash registers ring in their ears from their drastic advances made by their recent oh-so-qualified strike.
I’m not shilling (I know I’m pulling out the s-word preemptively), I’m just pointing out, the working man isn’t infallible. Sorry.
Comment by Surely you're kidding. — April 25, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
I love reading Nikki’s columns. Although I usually disagree with her 98% of the time from a sheer practical standpoint, it is nice to see someone in Hollywood who cares about the average Joe.
Let me state from the outset that I bat for the other team … and by that I mean “management”. I am in no way ashamed of this, so there’s no need to pull the shill card here. I feel that without the producers, financiers and distributors there would be no entertainment industry … same for the actors, writers, directors and crew who physically create our product.
Frankly, it amazes me that most of the posts on these boards are so vehemently against the management/executive side of the equation. The vitriolic rancor expressed here truly underscores the divide between the way our two sides see the state of the industry.
For example, we are always hearing about the dire state of the middle class actors, writers, directors and crews. Although it is sad to see anyone’s standard of living decease, I would feel remiss if I didn’t point out that independent producers generally have no insurance, no pensions, no residuals and often no salaries (just ask Cathy Schulman how much she made up-front on “Crash”). They also have no real guild (AMPTP represents “studios”, not producers … while the PGA is merely a forum for producers to fight with one another over who gets Academy Award recognition).
Producers are the ultimate “sweat equity” merchants. Their life is all about performing complex maneuvers on a high wire without any safety net below. I have seen dozens of producers work for nothing on successful films and never see a dollar from their “back-end” (that mythical pot of gold that the guilds like to delude their members into thinking is overflowing into the basement of every producers home), while actors who work for a handful of days get residual payments and pension contributions. Understand, I am not saying that one should take anything away from the actors or other craftsmen/women. Rather, I am saying that this industry is helping to erode the middle class by not giving safe haven and incentives to independent producers to make cost-effective product whereby they can help grow the low to middle end of the spectrum while also making a living for themselves. Simply put, indie producers are also becoming part of Hollywood’s new working poor.
It is true that producers are their own worse enemy sometimes (or maybe even most of the time). Their need to portray “success” and “affluence” only alienates labor. The perception that producing is all “wine”, “women” and “song” definitely creates a Robespierre response by the masses, when in fact many producers today are living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. It’s a tough life when you have to portray success in order to have someone invest in your film so you can try to achieve actual success (as no one wants to invest millions of dollars into someone living in their parents basement and living off their Capital One credit cards). However, one must respect their Kamakaze mentality, as it producers are binder rings of the Hollywood bible.
As for the guilds, I truly feel they are doing a disservice to their members in pursuing excessive gains in such a bad economy. This approach is what destroyed the American auto industry and which led to major rollbacks, pension plan erosion and downsizing in the airline industry.
It’s simple math, the cost of making the product is outpacing the profitability (and demand) of the product. The American film industry cannot survive such pressure. It is going to result in flight to other countries, watered down product, product rushed to market and a dominance of the industry by Wall Street types who just see Hollywood as an aggressive lending space.
Truth be told, the answer to both management and labors problems are simple … CREATE GREATER VALUE. If everyone focused less on their own plight and more on delivering quality product, then consumption would go up … demand for the labor behind the quality product would increase … and everyone would win.
However, it seems like the industry is getting itself is stuck in a panic driven mindset of “I gots to get mine”, wherein the health of the industry that feeds us all runs a distant second to self-serving agendas on all sides.
This isn’t about product placement, DVD residual formulas and increased minimums … take a look at the newspapers, our country’s economy is in the crapper and we’re becoming a second world debtor nation of under-qualified, over-entitled, elitist sloths. If we don’t “pull ourselves up by the bootstraps” and challenge the rest of the world in all arenas (including the performing arts) by striving to make the best product together, then all of these well-positioned debates by labor and management will go for naught when no one is making money or content in the American entertainment industry except a few elite, high-demand players who have CREATED and SUSTAINED VALUE on the highest levels. You think it’s bad out there now for the middle class … then just keep pushing and see where it will be in 2 years from now.
Having said that, I wish all sides the best of luck as I would never begrudge anyone from trying to get their value in a fair, measured approach.
Comment by Johnny Drama — April 26, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
Hey Drama,
After months of bullshit, it’s nice to see someone who genuinely understands what the statement ‘We’re all in this together’ means.
And for someone who ‘bats for the management,’ I’m very pleased to see you understand that greater than anyone who used the slogan on the picket line. A tip of the hat, sir.
Comment by BTL'er — April 27, 2008 @ 9:22 am
Johnny Drama,
I don’t think that the WGA or SAG dispute is with independent producers who might be in a very similar, or much worse, position than writers and actors, who at least have organized into unions to attempt to achieve some sort of balance of power and leverage with the multinational conglomerates.
I think your argument that the WGA/SAG is “pursuing excessive gains” in “such a bad economy” is specious and misses the point. What the WGA and now SAG asked/are asking for is far from being excessive. The AMPTP is, in reality, a representative for seven behemoths. All the other members are window dressing. The AMPTP does the bidding of the largest studios and the smaller members follow along and reap the benefits. The AMPTP has a lot of leverage and a good divide and conquer strategy. Whatever gains the WGA got in the latest contract, and I for one think they were far from impressive, necessitated a costly, damaging strike. If SAG is to improve on the deal the studios grudgingly agreed to with with WGA, they too will probably have to strike and withstand the wrath of misplaced below the line anger.
Do you honestly believe that if there were no unions, the studios wouldn’t take EVERYTHING? Not really blaming them, it’s business, and the actual creators of the product the studios sell in order to make enough money to pay, say, Jeff Zucker’s salary, possible, would be screwed to the extent that the studios could screw them (us). It’s business. It’s leverage. The unions are necessary to balance the power. The studios wield the collective power of every employee, stockholder and investor.
The state of the economy is the state of the economy. You can’t ask artists to be disproportionately affected. You can’t say that only writers, directors or actors should “understand we live in tough times” and not ask the same from the conglomerates and the “moguls” that manage them. I see no difference in asking a writer to take a pay cut because of the economy and asking Leslie Moonves to take a pay cut. Which do you think is going to happen?
It’s not about the independent producers. It’s about GE and News Corp and Disney.
Comment by Venice — April 27, 2008 @ 10:45 am
Mr. Drama (Management person) -
While I agree with your assessment of the plight of the independent producer - I’ve read Christine Vachon - unlike America’s beleaguered rust belt industries, Hollywood is alive and well and quite profitable. American movies and television shows are still the gold standard worldwide.
The entertainment industry is currently embarking on a generational shift, marked by radical changes in how content (did we even use that word ten years ago???) is generated, delivered, and consumed. What we creative types must guard against is the moguls masking their efforts to destroy Hollywood’s unions by exploiting this period of uncertainty. The strategy is laid out in “The Shock Doctrine”, Naomi Klein’s book which may rightfully be considered a post-industrial sequel to “The Art of War”.
I personally favor a balance between labor and management. Respect and appreciation from both sides should rule the day. Here and abroad, however, unions have been under full-scale attack since the late 1970s. We have seen unionized labor numbers decline precipitously as corporations play nation against nation, aided and abetted by politicians they’ve bought and paid for, here and abroad. They use the tax codes, the IMF, the World Bank, even mercenaries when they feel it necessary.
The entertainment industry is fully immersed in this. The moguls play the Canadians and their subsidies against American states, which then offer tax breaks to lure or just to keep business. Australia has lured away a lot of work too. Dozens of films, as well as television shows like HBO’s John Adams - have been shot in labor-cheap central Europe. While this has hurt American actors, it’s hurt Hollywood’s BTL types much more.
These corporations - American and other - have been largely successful in their efforts to de-unionize the American workforce, and keep it de-unionized. Japanese and other foreign-owned auto plants in the US are placed in “right-to-work” states. Wal-Mart - whose secret weapon is Hillary Clinton - maintains a rapid-response force that swoops into any store whenever an employee even breathes the word “union” under their breath.
Unions have finally at least started to fight back. Recent victories - not large numerically, but significant nonetheless - in the hotel industry in particular attest to this.
Now if you’re asking yourself, what in the name of Clooney does this have to do with actors, or writers, what we’ve noticed is the corporations running our industry play jacks on the corner of the same Wall Street as these other union-busting companies. They’re under pressure to improve profit margins, and the fattest-looking target is unionized labor - actors, writers, drivers, so on. Busting unions has improved the bottom line in other industries, so why not entertainment?
This is what actors in negotiations now are guarding against. We essentially want the same thing from New Media as we’ve been getting from Old Media, because we know Old Media is getting replaced (see Justine Bateman’s excellent piece at United Hollywood for an amazing analysis of the technological aspects of this). Unlike troubled rust-belt industries, our industry is healthy, and the money to keep middle-class actors and writers in the middle class is there.
We know the future of the Screen Actors’ Guild is at stake.
Comment by mheister — April 27, 2008 @ 11:56 am
I don’t know if “union busting” is the right word here. The AMPTP counts on unions to keep labor order in this town.
I’ve read “Justine Bateman’s excellent piece”, and while it might be accurate the concept is in the future. Last Monday the LA Times had an article in the business section about Gossip Girl. The network CW is pulling the first run off the Internet. They can see episode 1 two weeks later. Why, well its seems that more of their target audience watched it on the Internet that on the network feed. The network feed pays the bills where as the Internet pays little. A business decision plain and simple. Until the generational shift really takes place the money is still in the network feed.
I like the idea that so many of us have become futurists. It boggles the mind that we have become Mensa’s in such period of time.
Comment by just a thought — April 28, 2008 @ 11:48 am
Intrigued, I just want to say that while I do admit that we don’t have the exact numbers, we still have general proposals made by the guild. At this point in the game, nobody will show their hand to the press unless they either want to be ran out of town or get killed in the press.
As for the SAG No Strike clause, it is implied that a guild or union with a valid contract, fulfill their duties under that contract. However, SAG has been so helpful in the WGA strike because writers are the backbone of the industry. The speechless videos proved that, as did the total shutdown of TV.
Comment by Jessy S. — April 28, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
Jessy S.,
Once again, PLEASE do some research on these issues before you begin announcing your conclusions. The SAG “No Strike” clause does more than “imply” that the guild members must fulfill their duties. It COMPELS them to do so. Period. You don’t get to choose whether you wish to follow your contract or not. I’m sorry that this may be inconvenient, but like the DGA, IA, the Teamsters, and every other union and guild involved in Hollywood including the WGA, SAG is bound
by the “No Strike” clause. The SAG releases during the WGA strike made it clear that SAG members were to fulfill their contracts and join the picket line when they were available. The “Speechless” videos proved that certain celebrities were willing to make them, and the total shutdown of TV was afforded by the lack of scripts due to the absence of the writers. Attempting to rewrite the history of a recent strike is a truly unfortunate enterprise and I truly hope that you’ll take some time to look at what actually happened, and not just your opinions about the outcome.
Comment by Kevin — April 28, 2008 @ 11:38 pm
Jeesy S.,
You are unreal. It is nice of you to admit you don’t have the exact numbers. But try this one…
YOU DON’T HAVE ANY NUMBERS!!!
Comment by Intrigued — April 29, 2008 @ 5:04 am