The quiet confab took place last Monday at a location undisclosed to me. 
News Corp No. 2 Peter Chernin and Disney CEO Bob Iger conferred in person with SAG national president Alan Rosenberg and national executive director Doug Allen. This is exactly what the SAG pair told members they would do: hold informal get-togethers with the moguls to lay groundwork for formal bargaining. Rosenberg and Allen already had a meet-and-greet with Iger in late February.
I've heard polar opposite accounts of what happened. Sources close to the moguls claim it didn't go well. (Obviously, the attempt to villify Rosenberg and Allen has begun in earnest -- just like what was done to the WGA's Patric Verrone and Dave Young). Supposedly, "the SAG guys said they're not going to accept the DGA or WGA deal and want to renegotiate DVDs and New Media. Peter said, 'Then I guess we have nothing to talk about.' " But sources close to SAG claim, "The tone and tenor is completely false. There was no hyperbolic rhetoric. Conversations were cordial and constructive."
All I can say is -- just keep talking, guys.
Sometimes no news really is good news.
Comment by Scott Ellington — March 7, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
Just an honest question for the readers:
If SAG were to go out on strike, do you think they would see the same kind of support that the WGA did? I mean, I realize their fight has more or less the same merit that the WGA’s did. However, after a three month shutdown during the WGA strike, does anyone think people will be as willing to endure another one so soon? I find it difficult to believe that they would see the same level of support. Not to mention, I think strike fatigue would be a real factor here. To me, it seems that they have a much more difficult road here and that they won’t necessarily have the same leverage that the WGA had. Just an observation/question.
Thx,
HoopersX
Comment by HoopersX — March 7, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
Glad to hear it.
I’d like to offer a word about solidarity. As a SAG volunteer, I attended a meeting Thursday night of hotel workers at the Westin LAX who organized for the first time ever and won the right to collective bargaining through their new union, UNITE HERE. Just to establish the right to bargain collectively, over the course of two years, workers at this hotel dealt with firings, suspensions for wearing pro-union pins (a clear violation of labor law, BTW), and other harassment. And after all of this, they now have to be prepared to wield the one weapon they have to get a fair contract - their ability to walk off the job as a group until they are fairly compensated.
One worker, a man I’m guessing is in his 40s, spoke passionately about how he’s worked at that hotel for two decades, how he considers his fellow workers as well as the managers of the hotel to be family. These words were echoed by the hotel’s manager, who also spoke to his workers at this gathering, and he was heartily cheered.
The hotel workers’ victory was the result of their unity and solidarity as a labor force as well as their steadfastness as individuals, and their continuing success at the hotel will be aided, I am sure, by their positive attitude towards management even after a tough struggle. We actors could learn a thing or two from them.
Now that apparently informal get-togethers have commenced between SAG and the AMPTP, this is a great time to show unity and solidarity with each other and our SAG leadership, and let them do what we have elected and pay them for.
Comment by mheister — March 8, 2008 @ 1:41 am
Go SAG! Don’t back down!!!
I am ready to walk with you!
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox WGA
Comment by Go! — March 8, 2008 @ 5:50 am
It’s like they said after the WGA and DGA deals. Now nobody will negotiate except with the CEOs. But wait… weren’t Allen and Rosenberg OPPOSED to early negotiations?
Comment by Tobvious — March 8, 2008 @ 6:55 am
I suspect that they were opposed to being pressured to negotiate early, especially in such a public and tactically questionable, way by the other factions.
The public divisions were a sign of weakness, that hurt their standing in any negotiation, no matter the timing.
I wish them good luck and that they don’t get screwed.
Comment by Furious D — March 8, 2008 @ 8:49 am
If they want gains in new media and DVD’s, then they better be prepared to screw the A-listers. Maybe make an concession where there is an $500,000 per movie salary cap, and at least a $80,000 cap for first year Television series with 10% increases for years two through seven and a 15% increase after that. This will allow a breakthrough for more actors, and be considered an concession that allows the public to see that the SAG cares about us and is willing to lower the cost of going to a movie and so on.
Comment by Jessy S. — March 8, 2008 @ 10:19 am
Jessy S -
While a salary cap is an interesting idea, and one that has been employed with varying degrees of success in professional sports, I have my doubts that it can be applied effectively in the entertainment industry. A-listers are paid not only in salary, but in first-dollar grosses, revenue percentages from DVD, action figures, and various other ancillaries.
Also, no AMPTP signatory is going to agree they can only pay Brad Pitt $10 million when non-signatories in other countries would happily pony up the $20 million plus that he commands based on his box office appeal.
Comment by mheister — March 8, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
Quick, somebody tell AFTRA !
Peggy Lane O’Rourke
Comment by Peggy Lane O'Rourke — March 8, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
Salary caps? Why? If an A-lister can fills seats, there should be NO LIMITS. It’s the American Dream after all. What we need from our union are salary MINIMUMS so the rest of us can make a living.
I also still don’t understand why the earnings for dues are capped. At least they were raised recently, but why they exist in the first place is beyond me. 1% of your earnings is 1 %. No more no less. Fair. But there is still an earnings cap. In a business where there are no earnings LIMITS, why have an earnings CAP at all? And wouldn’t all that extra money come in handy to keep us solvent and take on - say the AMPTP?
Peggy Lane O’Rourke
Comment by Peggy Lane O'Rourke — March 8, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
Peggy,
From a broad prospective, the reason earnings are capped for dues is because of the vast difference in earnings amongst union members. If there wasn’t a cap then an overwhelming majority of the union’s funds would come from a select a few. There are several problems with this. A) Since the minimum agreement is NOT responsible for the millions of dollars those actors are making it is not fair to have them pay dues based on what they achieved on their own (in essence they pay dues to the agent that negotiated the contract). B) Since the negotiating power of the union lies with the high-earning actors they already have a more than equitable influence over the union, the union does not want to give them even more power by basically allowing them to fund the entire union (if there presence is the union is the negotiating power and their money is the financial strength, then the union becomes a de facto union for the top actors and the rank-and-file actors at the bottom will slowly lose representation within the union). So, the cap is actually there to try and preserve some semblemce of equality amongst union members.
The salary cap is an interesting idea. The earnings cap that is used and a salary cap have similar functions. The earnings cap selected because form a practical standpoint a slary cap was not an option…
If the union truly wanted to help achieve the maximum gains for the actors earning on the lower end, they woudl promote a “salary cap”. Actors wouldn’t lose anything under this proposal, just their would be a more even distribution of income among the actors. However, this will NEVER happen, because the top-earning actors are the negotiating strength of teh union and the fact that they don’t need the union, the majority would bolt the second the idea is floated, but in an ideal society the salary cap would be perfect for this situation (but its just not practical).
Comment by Intrigued — March 9, 2008 @ 6:47 am
Hi Intrigued,
I do see your point about the SAG earnings caps, although if A listers were not members of the union in the first place, they wouldn’t have the success they now have. But your point about who ultimately “owns” the union is dead on. I believe the cap is now set at $500,000. I would still set it at a million. And that’s low for some actors.
I still can’t see having a salary cap because no matter what, the money saved would not “trickle down” to other actors. In features, it’s the A list actor and everybody else. Scale + 10%. If you set a cap and tell Tom Cruise to take 15 million instead of 25 million, guess what? Everybody else still gets scale + 10%. So why not let the sky be the limit . Only if A-listers put clauses IN THEIR CONTRACT that other actors be paid more, will it change. Wouldn’t that be nice?
I’m a dreamer,
Peggy Lane O’Rourke
Comment by Peggy Lane O'Rourke — March 9, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
Peggy,
Sorry I didn’t explain the salary cap thouroughly. When a union negotiates a salary cap with management, it is always done in tandem with setting (or increasing) a salary floor as well. You are absolutely correct that teh studios (nor any other businesses) wouldn’t just decide on their own to give what the saved at the top to the other actors, but it would be established during the negotiation. The trade off is the studios get a salary cap, the union gets a salary floor. But as we both seem to agree, it is not practical to see this type of negotiation with SAG.
Comment by Intrigued — March 10, 2008 @ 11:35 am
Hi Intrigued,
I didn’t realize that about the salary caps, in which case I’d be all for it. I don’t see it happening either though, but what a great way to better distribute the wealth. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.
Peggy Lane O’Rourke
Comment by Peggy Lane O'Rourke — March 10, 2008 @ 3:09 pm