TV And Radio Actors Sign Deal With Hollywood

LOS ANGELES — The major Hollywood studios have told the Screen Actors Guild that if the union does not accept its final contract offer by Aug. 15 any proposed wage increases would not be retroactive, a person with knowledge of unreleased details of the offer said Wednesday.

The producers threw down that gauntlet in their final offer, which they said included $250 million in additional compensation over three years, said the person, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter and requested anonymity.

If the producers' deadline passes before the union ratifies a contract, that means the actors could lose more than $200,000 a day in increases dating to July 1, the day the new contract would take effect.

The two sides appear headed toward an impasse in their contract talks. Producers have released only general descriptions on their offer.

Scott Witlin, an entertainment lawyer who has represented television networks in the past, said he was told "members would start losing pay increases they would get if they don't ratify" by the deadline.

Norman Samnick, a lawyer who has represented the studios in talks with actors and also was told of the deadline, said such a clause was not unusual when negotiations extend beyond the end of a contract.

"The companies may use that as a point of negotiation," Samnick said.

A guild spokeswoman declined to comment.

Story continues below

advertisement

The studios, represented by the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, plan to meet with the guild Thursday afternoon to discuss their final offer.

On Tuesday, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, a smaller actors union with 70,000 members, said it had ratified a three-year deal retroactive to July 1.

The Screen Actors Guild had campaigned hard against the AFTRA deal and claimed that if members approved it that would undermine SAG's ongoing talks.

The guild, which represents 120,000 actors in movies, TV and other media, said late Tuesday that its work at the bargaining table will continue, despite the ratification of the smaller union's deal.

The guild represents the vast majority of work in prime-time TV and movies. Any work stoppage by its members could throw the industry into turmoil, even if AFTRA members continue working.

"We will continue to address the issues of importance to actors that AFTRA left on the table," SAG President Alan Rosenberg said in a statement Tuesday. "We remain committed to achieving a fair contract for SAG actors."

The guild has not called for a strike authorization vote.

In addition to the terms AFTRA approved, the guild said it is seeking further increases in compensation for DVD sales and Internet content and additional terms covering actors who must endorse products in scripted scenes.

But the producers' chief negotiator, J. Nicholas Counter III, said in a letter to California's state Legislature Wednesday that the alliance had presented its "last and best and final" offer to the guild.

The producers' stance left open the possibility they could declare talks were at an impasse. If confirmed by the National Labor Relations Board, the declaration would allow them to impose certain clauses of their offer on the guild, said Witlin and Samnick, the two industry lawyers.

But they might not because most changes between the old contract and the new offer favor the guild, Witlin said.

"Most of what's in the package are terms that are more beneficial to the performers than what currently exists," Witlin said. "I can't imagine they would actually implement the wage increases. That's just giving away money without getting an agreement."

The guild responded to the alliance's letter by saying it wanted to keep talking.

"If anyone is stalling, it's the AMPTP by suggesting that bargaining is over," said deputy executive director Pamm Fair in a statement. "Screen Actors Guild remains committed to bargaining a fair contract, and is available 24-hours a day, seven-days a week."

Comments

[ehandler]

I hate this headline (TV and Radio Actors Sign Deal..."). The vast majority of TV actors work under SAG contracts, not AFTRA. The only times I have worked under AFTRA contracts have been when producers decided to shoot on video and use AFTRA contracts specifically in order to pay actors less money. I didn't get to vote on this contract, as I'd recently withdrawn my membership in disgust. I got tired of paying dues to a union that granted me the right to work for less money than the other union I belong to.

[MozKrew211]

It passed with only 62% of the vote. That can't be comforting to AFTRA leadership. What will AFTRA leadership do if SAG can get their members a likely WAY better deal? Interesting stuff.

[helen]

Who is Bill Seward and why are you so upset about AFTRA?

[BillSeward]

who is helen and why is she blind deaf and dumb?

[Dannydel]

Bill, you obviously don't understand a few of lifes realities. Acting isn't really work, it's pretending. the only hard part is jumping up and down, trying to get noticed, listening to people who are lying to you with a straight face and living in a town with no discernable sense of morality. You either get back into the real world and get a real life, or spend your time scrabbling for the crumbs, scattered by the Godless, greedy producers. Nobodies twisting yor arm pal and you know the rules, he with all the money, has all the power. And here's a clue...it'­s not S.A.G. Never has been, never will be.

[Paw1]

If you are the Bill Seward I'm thinking of, you're a sports reporter in Los Angeles, or used to be. Clearly you hold a SAG card, Bill, so you must be a TV or film actor as well, since I'm pretty sure on camera news talent is a different guild. Has that become your primary source of income these days? Is that why you're so angry?

Personally, I'd love to get paid each time something I created on the job was reused, but that's not how it goes for most of us. I say hold out for the best deal you can, if you've got the stomach for losing money in the short term. TV production and distribution business isn't getting substantially more lucrative any time soon, and no big media company has really figured out how to monetize Internet viewing in a significant way. Dedicated web surfers can find anything they want for free, any time they want.

Good luck to you in any case.

[Dannydel]

If you have to ask: "Who is Bill Seward?", The question pretty much answers itself..he­'s nobody of any consequence, just another part time waiter/actor, sitting at Starbucks, waiting for his 'agent' to call.

[BillSeward]

Why would AFTRA give up on a DVD raise, since residuals affect actors so differently than the DGA (1 director) and the WGA (1, maybe 2 writers)? With actors, it’s 12 cents per DVD (?!) split between 10,20,30 actors,and the rate was agreed to nearly 30 years ago when the producers also promised to “revisit” the issue and never did, losing actors hundreds of millions of dollars in residuals. As you all know, actors LIVE on residuals. Can an AFTRA supporter make a fact based argument as to why the weak AFTRA protections on clips and the giving in on a long overdue DVD raise won’t really hurt actors? Why would you support these give-aways? I don’t get it.

A substantial raise in primetime minimums, which, as we all know, have become maximums. It’s overdue, and since producers no longer honor quotes, shouldn’t we be insisting on compensating by a substantial raise in minimums? The AFTRA 10% raise is less than the 4% per year consumer price rise. That’s a give-back, not a raise, yes?

[BillSeward]

Why would AFTRA supporters go for the weak product placement giveaways in the AFTRA deal? You’re on a TV set, or a movie set, and the producer wanders over and says “listen, we want to change your line - where it says ‘the wheels on my new truck are awesome!’ (stupid example, I know, but you get my meaning) to ‘the Michelin tires on my new truck are awesome!’ and we want you to be squatting by the tire so we can see the logo when you say it.”

What does an actor say to that? If he or she says “I’d rather not do that - it wasn’t in the script I agreed to and I feel stupid and exploited saying it,” what’s to stop the producer from saying “o.k. - you’re fired,” under the AFTRA contract?

[BillSeward]

I truly haven’t gotten an answer to some things I just don’t understand:

Since the AFTRA contract doesn’t lock down clip consent, why do the AFTRA supporters think they have a good deal? There are already sites running online that show episodes of TV shows, without paying or asking the actors. How is the AFTRA contract going to stop what is already happening? They have agreed to a “mechanism” that will be discussed with the AMPTP to work clip consent out, and a “sunset clause” to go back and revisit the issue in 3 years. Do any AFTRA supporters really think, after the DVD debacle that cost actors hundreds of millions of dollars, that the AMPTP isn’t laughing because they got serious wiggle room on clip consent in the AFTRA contract?

[BillSeward]

Why, when SAG covers 100% of movies and 99% of primetime TV, would dual card holders go for the weaker AFTRA deal and not support SAG? Is it because people are still upset about merger being voted down? Twice? Is it because SAG suggested proportional representation, to change AFTRA having 50% of the seats on the negotiating board, when SAG has 100% of movies and 99% of primetime? Why isn’t proportional representation more fair and reasonable given those overwhelming numbers?

I honestly don’t understand the AFTRA supporters viewpoint. Anybody?