SAG Strike Authorization Ballots Delayed

The Screen Actors Guild has delayed sending out the strike authorization ballots until January 14 at the earliest, representing an approximately two-week delay from the originally scheduled mailing date of January 2.

This development was revealed less than two hours ago in an email from SAG National Executive Director Doug Allen to all SAG members, which also stated that an in-person SAG National Board meeting is now set for January 12-13 (all day the 12^th and part of the day the 13^th). Re the ballots, the letter said that they would go out "immediately following this special board meeting," which would appear to mean January 14th at the earliest.

As reason for the move, the missive cited concerns by unnamed board members (presumably part of the hardline Membership First faction) over opposition that has resulted from over 100 high-profile actors (actually, over 130) and almost 1400 members. I'd guess that the opposition letters from the NY and Chicago boards had an effect as well, and that the Hollywood moderate Unite for Strength faction had an effect also (they met with Allen earlier in the day, per the LA Times).

The 12^th and 13^th are weekdays, and this fact may make it hard for some NY and regional members to attend, and even some of the working UFS members may not be available. Although they'd probably send alternates, this dilution may increase the ability of MF to control the agenda.

The letter also stated that the delay would give SAG extra time to conduct more member education and outreach aimed at increasing support for the strike authorization. One form this will take was disclosed to me by Doug Allen last week: SAG plans to conduct town hall meetings at regional branches around the country.

Allen's email was preceded several hours by an email from SAG President Alan Rosenberg by a letter asking members to support the strike authorization, hoping for a "fair contract and labor peace," and wishing members happy holidays.

The LA Times beat me on this one by about a half hour.

Here are the emails, Doug Allen's and the Alan Rosenberg's:

------------------

Dear Screen Actors Guild Member,

A number of National Board members have expressed concern about the organized opposition to SAG's vote "yes" campaign to encourage members to authorize the National Board to determine whether to call a strike in the TV/Theatrical contracts. While almost 100 high profile members and 2524 total members have endorsed the strike authorization vote mandated by the National Board, more than 100 high profile actors and 1373 actors have lent their names to the opposition campaign. This division does not help our effort to get an agreement from the AMPTP that our members will ratify.

Accordingly, President Rosenberg and I have decided to call a special face-to-face National Board meeting in Los Angeles, during the week of January 12, to discuss how we can address this unfortunate division and restore the consensus demonstrated by the National Board at our October meeting.

The Christmas and New Year's holidays, and the Commercials Contract W&W plenary in New York the first week of January, preclude scheduling such a meeting before the week of January 12. In accordance with our Constitution, this special meeting will constitute one of our two face-to-face plenary meetings for 2009.

In light of the subject matter of this special meeting, the strike authorization balloting will be re-scheduled to take place over a three-week period immediately following this special board meeting. This will provide us with more time to conduct member education and outreach on the referendum before the balloting.

This meeting will replace the January 24, 2009 plenary and will occur in Los Angeles all day January 12, and part of January 13.

Sincerely,

Doug Allen
National Executive Director and Chief Negotiator

-----------------------

Dear Screen Actors Guild Member,

As 2008 winds down I am hopeful that 2009 will bring us a fair contract and labor peace. I truly believe that if we move forward in unity with the collective strength of 122,000 professional actors behind us, we will achieve our goals. I implore you to learn as much as you can about the issues at stake, and stand with us and grant the board a strike authorization.

Actors have experienced the strife that this economic turmoil has brought, as have all Americans. Our hearts go out to our union brothers and sisters who have lost heir jobs, and to the thousands of United Auto Workers facing uncertain futures. But unionism is alive and well in this country as union workers rely even more on their unions for protection and advocacy.

Stop for a minute and think back to the day you got your SAG card. If you're like most of us, it was a moment of pride and accomplishment. That membership card in your wallet means you are a professional and you are entitled to union wages and working conditions. I am determined to see that your pride in your union continues and that your SAG card continues to shine.

You can rely on your Guild. Screen Actors Guild is strong, financially sound and ready to take on whatever the future brings. Your staff and elected members are working around the clock to provide leadership and to advocate and negotiate on your behalf. Residual checks are getting to you faster than ever, our website has been enhanced to meet your growing needs, and our professional staff is pursuing and collecting claims on our behalf around the country, every day.

While your leadership is not always in agreement, we must all pledge to keep our disagreements inside the boardroom and not air our differences in the press. We must all represent you with integrity and a commitment to stand together as we take on the huge global media corporations that want to break our union. We must stay true to our solidarity votes in the boardroom and true to our responsibility to better the lives of all SAG members and their families. Make no mistake, a house divided is doomed to fall.

We have a diverse membership spread throughout the United States. Each with common needs, as well unique career and geographical concerns. I am proud to represent each one of you and I wish you and your families a happy and healthy holiday.

In unity,

Alan Rosenberg

Also, make sure you take a moment to read the new post at SAG Talk "A Message from Eric Bogosian" available by clicking here http://www.sag.org/sag-talk and watch new videos with Alicia Witt, Hal Holbrook and Martin Sheen at www.sag.org and SAG TV.

More than 2,500 working actors have signed on to the SAG solidarity campaign at www.sag.org If you haven't yet signed the Guild's solidarity statement in support of a fair contract and a "yes" vote on the strike authorization, do so now at http://www.sag.org/solidarity-signup-sheet

Also, join our Facebook group Empower SAG -- Vote Yes at http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/profile.php?id=1352299994&v=info&viewas=1352299994

Please visit www.sag.org for up to the minute information and email [e-mail] (this is an email address and not a live web link) with your comments and questions.

Your support is crucial to our success in this effort.

Comments

[pauln51]

Thank you, Jonathan, for your thoughtful and thorough analysis...as an LA SAG actor, I understand the terrible shortcomings of the deal on the table, but a strike now would be disastrous for us...we must get back on board in solidarity with AFTRA and negotiate from strength in 3 years.

[philly34]

I completely agree with mrswakely. Look at all the comments here arguing against him-- they are all laying the blame for the economic harm a strike would cause on the doorstep of SAG. But there's no doubt that the AMPTP is being completely unreasonable and trying to screw us over. I have yet to see a valid reason for them to give SAG actors no residuals for new media-- and allowing this, even for the short term, will set a precedent that will eventually kill us. Considering this, I believe SAG has no choice but to authorize a strike. If a strike actually ensued and the economy is damaged further, the blame then lies with AMPTP and their ridiculous behavior that has put SAG in this position to begin with! If somebody attacks you, and your defending yourself will result in innocent people being hurt, who is really to blame? I don't know how this has been spun so as to frame SAG as the bad guy. The AMPTP is brilliant at this, I guess.

[MrsWakely]

Please Jonathan - show me ONE example of what you tell us as middle-class actors to put our faith in: that in three years, after "studying the data" and "joining with all the other unions" SAG will march into AMPTP's offices supposedly with all the other unions on our side (yeah, right) and the AMPTP will fall down at our feet, and give us BACK what they fought so hard to take away from us in the first place.

You display an incredibly naive take on the importance of "leverage" when the real issue is - necessity. As in "the necessary war" vs. "the war of choice'

[Jonathan Handel - Huffpost Blogger]

Also, let's not forget that there are many middle-class actors who oppose a strike. The NY and Chicago board members are not gazillionaires, I'm sure, nor are many of the signatories to the various no strike petitions.

You're convinced that all of them are hopelessly naive, even those who have been members of the guild for decades, have held divisional presidencies (or overall guild presidency in the case of Melissa), and some of whom (I believe, but am not sure) have served on negotiating committees in the past?

In other words, the all-knowing MF has the received wisdom, and everyone who disagrees is a fool, no matter their experience?

And, yet, MF is afraid to allow a minority report (in the poll, and no doubt, in the strike authorization ballot materials), for fear that people might be persuaded otherwise.

And, likewise, Alan (the MF-aligned president) is so frightened of dissent that he calls NY board members "subversive" for daring to disagree publicly.

Matt, do you understand that this looks a lot more like propaganda than democratic debate? Propagandists are afraid of debate, and demonize their opponents. MF is afraid of debate, and often demonizes its opponents.

I have the confidence to admit that there is a nuanced issue here. You, and MF, don't seem to. To me, there are pluses and minuses to waiting 3 yr, but the pluses outweigh the minuses. To you, there's only downside to waiting. Whose analysis is the more subtle?

[MrsWakely]

There are those who see this as a "war of choice" that we can delay three years, and then, IF all these utopian predictions come true: union unity, a better economy, a common union agenda, despite the obvious differences that made the issue of residuals MUCH less important for directors and writers, who get large upfront fees, as opposed to actors, who rely for residuals for a third to half their yearly income - IF all this happens, THEN we'll have "leverage" and the AMPTP will be forced to make this right. How silly.

Then there are those (me) who see this a "war of necessity" - the timing has been FORCED on us, there is NOTHING we can do about that. Signing this into precedent, which in your own words, means trouble: "precedents are like roach motels - they check in, but they never check out," means a MUCH more difficult task in three years, as brutal as it would be to have to strike over this now.

[Jonathan Handel - Huffpost Blogger]

It may well be a difficult fight in 3 yrs, but it's much more difficult now, for the reasons I listed.

[Housewife]

A SAG strike now will wreck the industry and the State of California. SAG will never recover from the worst timing in the history of organized labor. Best of luck.

[neosoul]

Sign me up.

As a consumer I would be willing to put any money budgeted for the theater, DVD rentals/purchases, cable bill...toward supporting the less fortunate actors while they strike.

[ivy921]

Just so I understand this correctly, they want a deal that is better than the one negotiated by WGA and the directors guild. And they want this deal during the worst economic downturn in decades and they're willing to put thousands of people out of work who do not have fancy unions looking out for them during this recession where people are struggling to keep their homes and jobs and where people are taking CUTS IN PAY and FURLOUGHS and BEING LAID OFF by the millions?

Any actor who votes for a strike is a tool. Sorry but timing is not on your side and you need to think about all the people you are hurting if you strike... like the workers who don't have unions and who don't get paid thousands or even tens or hundreds of thousands per episode. Or what about the people who watch your shows, who right now probably can't afford other means of entertainment?

If you strike, it just makes you look greedy and thoughtless, and people will start thinking of actors the way they think of greedy CEOs right about now.

[Housewife]

I agree.

[MrsWakely]

sbowerman

With all due respect - Rosenberg's JOB is to protect the ability of middle-class actors to make a living - NOT protect IATSE and the DGA.

If this deal is signed, residuals are gone, and they aint coming back. Had the DGA given that a single thought in THEIR negotiations, OR the WGA OR AFTRA, we wouldn't be pointing the finger at SAG, instead of where it belongs - the AMPTP.

Rosenberg is doing his job and following the votes of the membership, the national board and the negotiating committee. If this bullsh** "star" vote "no" petition sways too many people, or the NY and regional boards get their way and the SAV that was VOTED on already to be sent out, DOESN'T get sent out, we will have failed the union and failed the middle-class actor.

Matt Mulhern
SAG, AFTRA, DGA, AEA

[sbowerman]

,
Matt,

My point is this:

Alan can't say his heart goes out to his union brothers and sisters who have lost their jobs and then treat employed IATSE/DGA brothers and sisters as collateral damage when we in turn lose our jobs because of his decisions. It's illogical and it's insulting.

Warm holidays to you and a successful 2009.

[MrsWakely]

These "stars" should be ashamed of themselves. Most of them probably have only a superficial understanding of the issues, and they are assuaging their own guilt over being above the issues at stake because they're... uh, what's the word RICH - at the altar of SHORT-TERM thinking ("no strike - no actors or anyone out of work, and I don't feel so guilty with people walking picket lines while I vacation in St Barts) over LONG-TERM thinking - "if this contract is signed as is, residuals are done and they aint never coming back, and even Jonathan Handel agrees the "sunset clause" is "a joke" - so, tell me Jonathan - do YOU really believe, in three years, IF the AMPTP gets THIS contract signed, they're going to come back, JUST as they start to get the hang of stuffing all the goodies we're on the cusp of giving away into their corporate yobs, and RETURN those goodies to SAG?

[Jonathan Handel - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes, you have a chance at getting residuals if you can retain a contract expiration date in 3 yrs. synched with the WGA (as it is with the offer on the table, but which you will no doubt lose if this drags on) and threaten a joint strike. Today, SAG has no leverage: the union is divided, the leadership made the union last in the queue and also elevated AFTRA to new heights as a competitor, the union has to cope with strike fatigue, is coping with a wretched economy, has no public support for a strike, has no access to new media deal contracts and financials (as will be the case in three years under the proposed deal), and has little unity with AFTRA. A strike will take the union down the path to destruction, not to a deal with the terms SAG is seeking.

You and other MF-ers enjoy labeling me as anti-union, but I think your position, in fact, is what's driving SAG off a cliff and threatening to destroy the union. I accept that MF's positions are motivated partly by principles, misguided though I think they are, but it is also clearly motivated by a desire to retain/regain control in next September's SAG elections.

This whole situation, and MF's fear mongering and distortions, are like student government at its worst. I think it's shameful.

[MrsWakely]

Residuals? Clip consent? A reasonable product placement, instead of asking actors to promote products IN character in TV and film? AMPTP NOT paying 60 million owed to SAG in force majeure from WGA strike and AMPTP taking force majeure away after SAG has had that protection since 1937.

ARE you actually arguing SAG can expect to get all that BACK in 2011, and that "all the unions will join hands" and all that other utopian, ridiculous crap the "vote no" people are trying to tell the rest of us will happen? The "timing" of a possible strike IS TERRIBLE, and IF the SAV passes, and IF the AMPTP refuses STILL to be reasonable, and IF the national board then authorizes a strike, the "TIMING" will have been FORCED on us by the AMPT!

You think they aren't playing this economic mess for all it's worth to take everyone's eye off what they are REALLY doing - stripping away residuals and other vital protections that will make it next to impossible for middle-class actors to make a living?

[spqr369]

And what about the people who work in the industry that don't have a union? A strike would also be devastating to the economy in Los Angeles, and to state of California, which already has a huge budget deficit. This is not the time to strike!

[ivy921]

I wholly agree with spqr369. And in this horrible economy where people are losing homes and jobs and being forced into furloughs or pay decreases, a strike is just unconscionable.

I understand they want their residuals, but given that residuals are often related to being paid after the original payment of the original work... well, they've already been paid. And generally quite well unless it's very small projects we're talking about and few actors would expect residuals on those. You get paid for the work you do. That's the way it goes in the real world. Maybe not in the land of the famous, but for the rest of us it sure does.

This is just the wrong time. You can't have your hand out for more while the world is in economic crisis. Actors are not outside the realm of all things economic and the reality is that the world is in economic crisis. A strike now looks a lot like greed rather than being grateful to even have work.

[sbowerman]

" Our hearts go out to our union brothers and sisters who have lost their jobs"......

Mr. Rosenberg,

How can you say this with any shred of sincerity knowing the strike you want authorized will put thousands of IATSE and DGA brothers and sisters out of work and take away their ability to provide for their families ?