SAG and the Studios: Post-Prandial Posturing

Open the fridge after Thanksgiving, and leftovers come tumbling out. Open your inbox after Thanksgiving, and SAG-related emails come tumbling out (these in addition to a pre-Thanksgiving email as well). Most are just the same old starchy stuffing we've been fed for months, albeit dressed up with a salty quote or two.

In the last day, I've received a fact sheet, a copy of a trade ad, and three press releases, including one from SAG that's quaintly-titled "No One Has Our Proxy," and another from the AMPTP asserting that "SAG's press release proves that SAG is now officially out of touch with reality." I happen to believe that SAG's leadership has been out of touch with reality for quite some time, but it's a relief to know that the official finding is now in.

If you thought the house was a mess after your Thanksgiving guests got done spilling cranberry sauce on the tablecloth and grinding crumbs into the carpet, consider what December will look like in unionland. The SAG strike authorization ballots are likely to go out within the next few weeks if not days, and we can expect more press releases and emails to follow. The stakes are high. If the union achieves a yes vote of 75% (or more) of those voting, it will have the strike authorization it seeks, and the national board is likely to then vote to go on strike.

What happened to the newly-elected Hollywood "moderates," Unite for Strength? They (like the hardline Membership First) voted for the October board resolution that brought us to this juncture. They were quite simply outmaneuvered by MF. Now they probably won't put up a united front against a strike authorization, because they're concerned with positioning themselves to achieve further gains in next September's SAG elections. If they publicly oppose a strike authorization, then MF will tar them as Benedict Arnolds who hamstrung their own union's attempt to fight the AMPTP.

Instead, UFS prefers to take a long view. Remember that their primary platform plank was merger with AFTRA, itself a long-term goal. Of course, how to prevent irreparable damage to the union and the industry in the meantime is a harder question. And if UFS simply goes along with MF, then how does UFS distinguish itself come next September's elections? They risk becoming an echo of MF in the short term. The hardliners have very strategically boxed in UFS, it seems.

Maybe some leaders in NY and the regions will come out against the strike authorization or a strike -- MF has little or no power outside of Hollywood -- but even if that were to happen, it may not be enough to sway Hollywood voters, who constitute the bulk of the union. And even the NY and regional board members voted for the October resolution: all but 2 of the 71-member national board did so. That makes it harder for those board members to come out publicly against a strike authorization.

Is it really possible, in this economy, that SAG members will vote to authorize a strike? Yes. Here's why: (1) As I've previously blogged, many SAG members don't work as actors in any given year, and so have little to lose directly from a strike. (2) Also as I've blogged, SAG will conduct a vigorous "educational" campaign in favor of an authorization. The union campaign will be direct and effective. No one else will be able to send email and physical mail directly to all 106,000 paid Guild members, because no one else has the addresses. (3) There's no "quorum" or minimum number of votes required. If turnout is low or moderate, then a few thousand members could take the entire Guild out on strike. For instance, if only 20,000 members were to vote, then 15,000 yes votes would be enough to pass the authorization. The risk is that some people opposed to a strike authorization might not vote because they, like many people, wouldn't believe that the union would strike in this economy, and over what are currently mere pennies.

If an authorization is achieved, what then? The studios are unlikely to change their position even when presented with an authorization. On the SAG board, non-hardline board members will come under pressure to vote with the hardliners for a strike. That's true for two reasons: the September elections (as noted above) and the fact that MF will point to the authorization vote and characterize a strike as the will of the membership. The stage would then be set for a long and bitter strike. How would it end? Not well for anyone.

And what if the authorization vote fails? Then there's no strike -- but also no deal, because the current SAG leadership is simply unwilling to agree to terms that the studios find acceptable. The SAG leadership attempted to derail the AFTRA deal and failed, but they just continued onward, ignoring their defeat. If they fail to achieve an authorization, they're likely to do the same, until and unless the moderates eventually seek to change the union leadership.

My usual disclaimer: perhaps cooler heads will prevail; and/or perhaps the members will decline to pass an authorization. Maybe. But so far, the only real leadership in the union is coming from a faction that's driving it towards a strike, not a deal. Twelve months ago, the writers were walking the picket lines. By early or mid January, the actors could be too. Talk about the ghost of Christmas past.

Comments

[thetvdecider]

as much as i thought the writers' strike was a disaster for at least the TV industry (how you feelin' "pushing daisies," "dirty sexy money," "eli stone," and even "heroes?"), WGA's leaders look like the founding fathers compared to SAG's. at least WGA was transparent " they knew what they wanted and what they were prepared to do to get it. it was an open book. SAG is all over the map in terms of demands and even more opaque when it comes to a strike. so strike authorization ballots are going to be sent out "around christmas?" (today's variety.) the national board met on October 18th, what's the hold up? seems as though SAG leadership wants to keep turnout as low as possible, holding a holiday vote at time when many working actors " some of whom might just be crazy enough to want to keep getting paid " are on vacation. this also makes it easier for the union to get returned "strike" ballots from their non-working can't-afford-to-get-out-of-town lackeys. hey SAG, at the very least, hold your strike vote in january, when your entire membership will have the time to study the issues and actually be available to cast a ballot. then you can screw up the industry again.

[BillSeward]

1. phasing out of residuals
2. clip consent
3. product placement
4. force majeure

Those are the biggies. Educate yourself before you vote. It's a seminal contract. Precedent tells us with VHS/DVD and cable residuals - 22 and 20 years respectively - that once the producers get it in writing, it's over. They are never coming back to it. The WGA is already not being paid by the AMPTP on new media residuals in the BAD contract SAG is fighting off. IATSE members hate their deal. You want a profession worth pursuing? Don't believe the anti-strike hype. Handel falls on the side of the AMPTP every time. Who knows why. Ask him.

[sbowerman]

As a fully employed member of IATSE I do not hate my deal. What I do hate is my lively hood and the ability to support my family taken away once again by another unions careless leadership .

[Vutan]

Listen, all is nice and dandy, but it seems to me that SAG's tactics to achieve a deal aren't much loved inside the guild as well.
I don't see any public figure in the acting community coming out and supporting the strike. So far, besides Danny De Vito, Rhea Perlman, Richard Masur, Mike Farrell and other Guild's insiders publicly speaking against the strike authorization request, you had James Caan ridiculing the strike, on ET if I remember correctly, James Cromwell doing the same, and Sarah Chalke from Scrubs voicing the concern that a work stoppage in this climate, and at the heels of the WGA strike, might cripple for ever a lot of shows.
I don't know, maybe they're all bad people...Or maybe, just maybe, this hardline tactic isn't really paying off...

[sbowerman]

What I would like to read in this discussion is who among you will lose a considerable amount of income if another strike should occur and are you financially prepared to be put in a very deep hole.

I'll start the discussion. Yes I will and no I am not.

[elizaW]

The only thing a SAG strike will accomplish is it will give those actors who never work an excuse for never working. Unions are becoming the enemy of those who work and the friend of those who don't. How insane is that?

[screamingbanshee]

those that DO vote, AGAINST a strike, run the risk of being penalized by SAG. and if the BIG stars were REALLY doing this for the actors that don't work as much, the NINETY SIX PERCENT of SAG members that don't work, then why isn't one of the points relative to the amount of work ONE ACTOR (Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, etc) gets? let's see, where else is the balance so outweighed? where else has there been a select few (2%) who get everything while the rest of the poor schmucks do all the work? hmmm...it rings a bell....
SAG could very well be striking itself obsolete. SAG is going to screw everyone else over, the caterers, the drycleaners, the grips, the set dressers, (who DON'T get residuals, by the way) for .003% on an internet download, huh? sounds pretty ef'd up to me.

[Liberalfrombirth]

As an addendum to the above, I urge anyone who is interested in this subject to read Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood blog. Updated constantly, it is the place for up-to-the-minute information on the business of Hollywood. At this moment (5:00 p.m. EST, Tuesday, Dec. 2) she is reporting that the English speaking Canadian actors' union ACTRA's executive director has told the Toronto Star that ACTRA will support a SAG strike vote or strike authorization vote. " There is no other alternative for us. We are a trade union, and we support our brothers and sisters'" Also see the problems the Writer's Guild have been having with the AMPTP to simply have them pay residuals agreed upon in their recent contract. The AMPTP have not negotiated in good faith with SAG, and are lying and trying to weasel their way out of a contract they agreed to just this spring. And you, Mr. Handel, want actors to just roll over and take it? Go figure.

[heywhat]

Ms. F may be well connected and know how to drive blog traffic (with her "toldja" and "please refresh" posts) but her readers should always remember that turmoil in the industry increases her readership. I find nothing wrong with that, she is obviously trying to make a living (anyone remember that great post right before Christmas last year when she railed against Sony for not delivering her Christmas presents - can't quote from it as she removed it very quickly, someone must have pointed out that some strikers wouldn't be having much Christmas). If Ms. Finke would like to forego her income during a possible strike then I might find her blog to be more than just a source for over the top entertainment designed to stir up controversy.

[Liberalfrombirth]

I am wondering when Huffpo will have some pro-SAg/strike authorization editorials. All I've seen so far are anti. As to the issue of striking in "this economy", the studios and their bosses are doing just fine. They even brag about it in financial magazines and on TV, just like they arrogantly and stupidly did during the writer's strike. The AFTRA deal was crap, and SAG has waited 20 years for a fair deal on the "new media" of VHS and DVD. Sure people will make ignorant and snarky remarks about "rich actors" - hell. according to popular Village wisdom auto makers take home $70 an hour (this is a lie, by the way). It's an attempt at union busting, plain and simple. Keep us all down, all poor, and utterly helpless. The AMPTP have walked away from negotiations time after time, including with a federal mediator. I think SAG has acted in a patient, mature manner. If they must strike to get fair pay for their employees, then so be it. But man, what a bitch all those e-mails seem to be for you. For myself, I appreciate being informed on what my union is doing.

[heywhat]

I am pro-union but from my window it looks like the reason most actors make so little is there is so little work. A strike may increase an actor's rate but it automatically lowers his/her income because - hey - strike days cut down on work days - plus, projects are halted (some never to start up again) and work may be lost to other countries.

[ProudLiberalDan]

Thank you for writing on this matter.

Membership First hasn't accomplished very much since it took over SAG. In fact, it's greatest achievement seems to be improving the market share for AFTRA. It seems a few hardline MFs expect that AFTRA will get out of the business of organizing actors just because MF throws a temper tantrum and stomps its feet. The only way forward is a constructive relationship between SAG & AFTRA because AFTRA isn't going anywhere it seems but up. Even better would be merger so the producers cannot do divide and conquer anymore.

The negotiations for this round are already lost. With the economy as bad as it is, I just don't think there is anyway to get the supermajority vote in favor of a strike. The likeliest result is losing the strike vote and then SAG ratifying the similar contract that WGA/DGA/AFTRA agreed to. It's sad, but clearly the choice to sideline AFTRA and pretend they didn't exist or shouldn't exist didn't work.

In three years, the WGA, DGA and SAG/AFTRA should sit down and decide what their joint bottom lines are, and the collectively approach the producers. I'd take this even farther. Why not one umbrella union for writers, directors and actors? The "lean, mean SAG" is a flop. The alternative is forming an organization that doesn't allow the producers to use divide and conquer tactics between the actors unions and between the actors, directors and writers unions.

[berkeleygirl1962]

"One Big Union"--sounds like a great idea.:-)

[Stefano]

Now I understand that not all members of this union are household names, and that the rich members are fighting for those less fortunate, but with this economy, how do you think the public will react watching this. All we'll see are the rich actors on TV with picket signs, while many of us will be hurt directly or indirectly by this strike. This has PR nightmare written all over it. When people are struggling, I doubt they'll feel solidarity with actors, maybe the UAW, but not SAG members.