SAG Seeks Strike Authorization

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - SAG Seeks Strike Authorization stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

| 11/23/08 01:26 AM | AP

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Actor and president of the Screen Actors Guild, Alan Rosenberg, poses for a portrait in this March 17, 2003, file photo taken in Los Angeles. The Screen Actors Guild said Saturday Nov. 22, 2008 that contract talks with Hollywood studios has failed despite the help of a federal mediator and it will now ask its members to authorize a strike. (AP Photo/Ric Francis, File)

LOS ANGELES — The Screen Actors Guild said Saturday it will ask its members to authorize a strike after its first contract talks in four months with Hollywood studios failed despite the help of a federal mediator.

Federal mediator Juan Carlos Gonzalez adjourned the talks between SAG and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers shortly before 1 a.m. after two marathon sessions failed to produce an agreement. No new talks are scheduled.

The SAG, representing more than 120,000 actors in movies, television and other media, said in a statement that it will launch a "full-scale education campaign in support of a strike authorization."

Talks broke down after the studios sought the right to create productions for new media, such as the Internet, using nonunion actors and without paying residuals, said Doug Allen, SAG national executive director and chief negotiator.

Residuals are payments to actors that are made every time a production airs, such as TV reruns. Many SAG members rely on residuals for more than half of their income, Allen said.

"They're asking us to bless a system we believe would be the beginning of the end of residuals, and that's a very scary thought for working actors," he said.

The producers' alliance condemned the SAG decision and said it remains the only major Hollywood guild without a labor deal this year.

"Now, SAG is bizarrely asking its members to bail out the failed negotiating strategy with a strike vote _ at a time of historic economic crisis," a producers' statement said. "The tone-deafness of SAG is stunning."

SAG's national board has already authorized its negotiating committee to call for a strike authorization vote if mediation failed. The vote would take more than a month and require more than 75 percent approval to pass.

SAG wants union coverage for all Internet-only productions regardless of budget and residual payments for Internet productions replayed online, as well as continued actor protections during work stoppages.

But the AMPTP said it was untenable for SAG to demand a better deal than what writers, directors and another actors union accepted earlier in the year, especially now that the economy has worsened.

The producers' group this week said it had reached its sixth labor deal this year, a tentative agreement on a three-year contract with the local branches of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts, accounting for 35,000 workers.

The stagehands alliance accepted Internet provisions that were modeled on agreements with other unions, the producers group said.

Actors in prime-time television shows and movies have been working under the terms of a contract that expired June 30, with the hope of avoiding a repeat of the 100-day writers strike which shut down production of dozens of TV shows and cost the Los Angeles area economy an estimated $2.5 billion.

LOS ANGELES — The Screen Actors Guild said Saturday it will ask its members to authorize a strike after its first contract talks in four months with Hollywood studios failed despite the help of ...
LOS ANGELES — The Screen Actors Guild said Saturday it will ask its members to authorize a strike after its first contract talks in four months with Hollywood studios failed despite the help of ...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
225
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (9 pages total)
photo

The Guild needs to get out in front of this story quickly if they hope to get the public behind them. The studios are going to try to paint this as rich, greedy, actors wanting more in a time of economic peril. Nevermind the fact that most guild members survive on scraps and its the producers and studios raking in the dough. Again, this needs to be a very concise public campaign on the part of the guild if they hope to get the public on their side. In a time where unions should have a better hand in a 'democrat majority' era, this is not the time to falter.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:09 PM on 11/22/2008
photo

Only a tiny percentage of the members of SAG make enough in a single year to even qualify for health benefits, let alone a living wage. Most of the working union members - less than 5% who make a living wage - are simply middle-class workers, akin to those of any other profession, with rent, mortages, car payments and families to feed. The very small percentage of actors who make millions are actually management in this case and have production companies of their own as well as lucrative production deals with the studios. Most of them, sadly, would prefer labor settle without a strike because they've lost sight of - if they ever really knew - what solidarity is and what it means to be a worker among workers. Whether or not the working stiff gets stiffed is of little to no consequence to them because their back-end (royalty payments to those who need them) is negotiated up front. Producers make billions on new media yet will remove all options until labor is forced to strike over what amounts to pennies. It's been going on since workers unionized to protect themselves from greedy and unscrupulous management. Stories of "pretty people in Hollywood making millions" are spread by the uninformed with no regard for facts. These actors are simply middle to lower-middle class workers trying to make it against greedy corporations. To make matters worse, the studios actually want to roll back benefits the union has already negotiated for and won!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:53 PM on 11/22/2008

So the actors are to blame?

Forget about the greedy producers, and their non-willingness to negotiate.

I made $16,000.00 last year as an actor. I support myself. I earned a pension credit and my lower level health care. I will not do that this year, but I know in order for my standard of living to increase we have to stand up to the producers now. You do not get a do over in this business. We learned that from past negotiations.

Tom Hanks and other big names are not who the union is fighting for! When do you think the last time they worked for scale?

I just want to make enough to by a small home of my own while working in a job I love. I keep my cost low so I can survive off low amounts of income, but what a relief if I could earn a little more so everyday was not a struggle.

Doesn’t everyone have that right in there job? Is not that what America is about? Why is it OK for the 7 conglomerate producers to make all the money and not trickle some down to the folks who actually work there butts off?

I supported the grocery store workers and for months drove way out of my way for groceries, the writers too, where’s the solidarity when it is our turn?

You want movie tickets to go down PAY ALL ACTORS SCALE! But then you lose your MOVIE STARS!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:51 PM on 11/22/2008
photo

You guys need to trim 80-90% of your membership so that more members can actually stand a chance of making a decent living. $1,000.00 a day is pretty good pay, but not if you only work 10-20 days a year.

The problem is that you have to many members, not the conditions and pay. Get real.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:26 PM on 11/22/2008

Please, 'work their butts off;? Yes the studios are at fault, but work your butts off? Really?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:34 PM on 11/22/2008
photo

LOL...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:42 PM on 11/22/2008
photo

How long did you work to make that $16,000.00? One month maybe? You'll probably make a equivalent amount in residuals too. Tell that to Joe Six-pack that probably needs to work 6 months, to a year, in order to make an equivalent amount of money.

You problems are entirely due to the fact that you guild has taken on too many members, not because wages and conditions are bad. You guys make $1,000.00 per day PLUS residuals.

Stop making those of use, that do make a living in this industry, suffer because your guild is so messed up and misguided.

Get a real job and stop your whining.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:36 PM on 11/22/2008

What do you do Captain? Because you do not know much about all actors wages.

I work my butt off when in heels, girdle, running through rain over and over again. (Heels after 12 hours MURDER)

Or in skimpy dress covered in dirt, freezing cold. (However I do love my job)!

There are very easy times as well TRUE.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:50 PM on 11/22/2008

"You guys make $1,000.00 per day PLUS residuals."

That's wrong.

FACT: We SAG actors, working background, make $130 a day in New York and NO residuals. If we can score a principal job once in awhile, we are lucky and thankful. But the majority of SAG members are not working for that kind of money.

Get your fact straight before ranting, Captain Howdy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:59 PM on 11/26/2008

Has the SAG membership been allowed to see the actual deal that the AMPTP has on the table? I haven't seen any evidence that they have. How will they make an intelligent choice regarding a strike vote unless they are allowed to see the basis for their vote?

In better times I would be able to be more supportive of SAG. I know the new media issue is important and given what happened with DVD negotiations years ago I know that it is not as easy as it seems to revisit these issues once you agree to a precedent. However, objectively it appears that the losses incurred to everyone in a strike - including SAG members - would far outweigh the gains possible.

I'm against a strike for my own economic reasons. It would be devastating to my family. While I value the contributions made by my acting friends, I hope they will forgive me for being unable to to support something that will likely result in some form of financial ruin for my family. Frankly, I know not a single one of them that would agree to pass up a job for me even if I were being treated unfairly. And I wouldn't ask them to do it either.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:50 PM on 11/22/2008

This is a time for all Americans to come together and make sacrifices. Those in high ranking positions should demand less. Hollywood stars, for example. I can't afford to go to the movies right now, so how can you justify raking in millions for a film that doesn't? All of us need to cut back and stay home more. Oh wait, another television strike. Bad timing. I predict your shows won't survive another one. I think I'll get the old board games out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:43 PM on 11/22/2008

Cosign, if they don't want the jobs I'm sure there are many who would love to have them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:38 PM on 11/22/2008

What a bunch of fools to strike with the economy being what it is. They should all be thankful to have jobs, period.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:31 PM on 11/22/2008

SAG is the union with the highest unemployment rate, actually, so "they all" don't have jobs to be thankful for. That said, they should not strike. The producers should give a little on the Internet residuals.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:37 PM on 11/22/2008
- wadenelson1 I'm a Fan of wadenelson1 249 fans permalink
photo

SAG hasn't got a prayer in this economy.

A 3rd rate PR guy would have a field day with their demands in the eyes of the American (now-laid-off) public.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:52 PM on 11/22/2008
- Adub I'm a Fan of Adub permalink

SAG is as clueless and out of touch as the Big 3 automakers. SAG president Alan Rosenberg, whose wife is multimillionaire CSI star Marg Helgenberger, doesn't have to worry about paying the mortgage payments, putting the kids through school or filling up a tank of gas. The man should be publicly tarred-and-feathered.

Hollywood is a one-industry town and we're getting financially pulverized and decimated, along with the share prices of all the media conglomerates, but these actors want more? Every other studio in town has signed on with the producers' fair contract, but it's not good enough for the actors.

If this weren't so serious it would be laughably insane.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:26 PM on 11/22/2008
photo

People like Helgenberger aren't scale players.
there are 120,000 members, very few are affluent.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:31 PM on 11/22/2008

Very few are even employed. Yet the producers keep making money on internet distribution, without any of it going back to SAG. However, a strike would be a disaster. I think it would kill the union altogether, actually.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:40 PM on 11/22/2008
- Adub I'm a Fan of Adub permalink

I know not many are affluent, but when the head of the union is financially so far removed from the financial reality that the rest of us (I'm IATSE) are facing, it impedes his perspective.

In better times I may have supported SAG in this. This is not a better time. It's not a decent time. It's not even a bad time. IT'S THE WORST TIME SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION. Put the strike authorization to a vote already and let's get beyond this. I know next to no one in the movie industry who has worked in the last 5-6 months. Our city's economy is getting killed - that's not just salaries of actors and below-the-line folks; it's post-production houses, caterers, other suppliers, restaurants, dry cleaners, retailers. This city relies on production jobs. It will take YEARS to recover from this. If SAG strikes, it would kill Los Angeles.

They should take the current offer and regroup for re-negotiations in three years.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:01 PM on 11/22/2008
photo

A lot of anti-SAG stuff here.
But, there is one point to be made.
In the last year many networks,
thru things like Hulu, are offering
TV shows on line. And people are watching
at their convenience.

While Hulu generates revenue thru advertising,
the entertainment companies are making that
old "we didn't make any money" line.
Story on HuffPo earlier this week on this.

It's more bookkeeping tricks. Like the studios that
manage to make blockbusters "financial disasters"
on their books.

Same problem all across the nation and economy,
creative bookkeeping. Straightforward accrual
bookkeeping, what a quaint idea.

I believe that a SAG strike would be detrimental to
the entertainment industry, and Calf econ. All avoidable,
if entertainment execs delivered what they promised.

Ask anyone who's been under a personal services contract
if they actually got what they were promised.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:25 PM on 11/22/2008
- Marklar I'm a Fan of Marklar 14 fans permalink
photo

So let me get this strait, we have the highest unemployment rate in years, and SAG wants to strike because they aren't getting paid enough. Stupid and greedy.

I hope this strike doesn't happen.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:24 PM on 11/22/2008
- jrb35 I'm a Fan of jrb35 14 fans permalink

I too hope that the strike doesn't happen. I have many friends who work as art directors & set builders in the TV & Film industry who will lose work because of it.

I disagree ith your conclusion that it's about greed. These actors (and the writers before them) are not being fully compensated for their labor. It doesn't matter if it's $100 or $100,000.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:40 PM on 11/22/2008
- Samalabear I'm a Fan of Samalabear 74 fans permalink
photo

The networks are canceling shows and whining continuously about low viewership this year. Part of this was due to the election -- certain shows like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman (all basic cable) -- but the lion's share, I'm sure, is due to the writer's strike. Out of sight too long and people discover or re-discover ways to enjoy themselves, it becomes part of the rhythm of life and you start to forget about that TV that you thought was must-see well over a year ago. I am loyal to very few shows since the strike. Why bother? The three I had enjoyed and was looking forward to coming back -- my only reason for watching ABC -- were all canceled this week. I didn't think Pushing Daisies was coming back and it was such a pleasant surprise when it did. Well, that sure was short-lived. I can take or leave TV now.

The movie industry is not immune to this. And, as others have said, the non-SAG lives affected by this would be devastating.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:15 PM on 11/22/2008

Good idea - let's take away sources of diversion at a time people are miserable. It's hard to find sympathy if you're walking away from a paying job when the unemployment lines are longer than the picket lines.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:03 PM on 11/22/2008

It's harder to make a living acting than it is to make a living as a professional gambler. I agree the timing is horrible, but I am also sympathetic to the working actor who lives paycheck to paycheck.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:19 PM on 11/22/2008
photo

Excuse me? Most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck...and work harder at it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:34 PM on 11/22/2008
photo

The timing of this couldn't be worse. It is very foolish, stupid, and arrogant to do this, especially now. The business has just recovered from the writers' strike, now this? What are the management of SAG trying to prove? That they're tougher than the other union (AFTRA)? AFTRA has already settled with the studios, SAG should follow their lead.

I hope SAG members reject this strike.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:02 PM on 11/22/2008
photo

Get ready for a whole new slew of Reality Shows!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:00 PM on 11/22/2008
- lj9283 I'm a Fan of lj9283 67 fans permalink
photo

SAG is a Union with 120,000 members, and according to the article a strike vote will "require more than 75 percent approval to pass". Now I do not claim to know the true substance of the issues that have caused the two sides in this dispute to walk away from the table, but they have.

So if 90,000 SAG members feel that there are substantial issues that would put their future capabilities to earn a living in peril then they should strike.

I do NOT know if those issues are substantial enough because this is not how I earn a living.

It should be viewed as important that people make informed decisions about their future earnings capabilities as most of these 120,000 people are probably struggling like the rest of us to make ends meet somewhere north of extreme debt.

If the Union demands are unreasonable, then it is up to the membership of the Union to change those demands. If 90,000 people don't think it to be unreasonable then there's probably something to it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:57 PM on 11/22/2008
photo

So what you are saying is that if 90,000 people think it appropriate that they get something, no matter what it is, then they should stick together and demand that they receive it.

We all do understand how the economy works, right? Limited resources. Only so much of any commodity available to go around. If Jane Doe takes more then it has to come from someone else.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:08 PM on 11/22/2008
- JohnPone I'm a Fan of JohnPone 12 fans permalink
photo

a substantial number of sag members barely eek out a living... so a strike is really no skin off of their backs.

since the number of productions are way down due to lack of $$$ it doesn't seem like they have a lot of leverage at this time.

For those of you who believe that inclusion in SAG means the union member is making money hand over fist... welcome to reality as it is not the case.

the producers are basically evil... at every turn... i know.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:25 PM on 11/22/2008

I'm pretty sure it's 75% of those who vote, not 75% of total membership; if only 1,000 people vote (and admittedly a signficant number more will vote but a whole lot won't), then it only takes 750 strike votes to take everyone out. Anybody know if this is correct?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:48 PM on 11/24/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (9 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect