SAG Stalks Towards Strike
Mediation between the studio alliance (the AMPTP) and the Screen Actors Guild failed late Friday night, and SAG announced plans to seek a strike authorization vote from its members. Unfortunately, that puts us one giant step closer to a strike.
What's next? SAG will send out "educational materials," which will say that a strike authorization vote is not the same as an actual strike vote, and that authorization is needed as a negotiating tool, since negotiation and mediation have failed. At the same time, or later (it's unknown), SAG will send out strike authorization ballots. That latter process takes 30 days or so, we're told (i.e., ballots are due back approx. 30 days after they're sent out).
The union needs to achieve a 75% yes vote from those voting, in order to authorize a strike. Achieving the 75% may be hard in this economy, but might still be doable, since what's required is 75% of however many or however few members vote, not 75% of the entire membership. Over half the union doesn't work in any given year, so a strike has little direct negative effect on them. On the other hand, many are probably waiters (and some, like those at my gym, are personal trainers), and those jobs, in NY and LA, at least, will be hard hit by a strike.
No one other than the union itself has access to member email addresses and physical addresses, to my knowledge, so no one will be sending "educational materials" directly to the members arguing for a no vote. There'll be pro and con ads in the trades (Variety and Hollywood Reporter), but the trades are less targeted: each of them has a circulation of only about 30,000, including execs and many people other than actors (indeed, at $200/year, most actors can't afford the trades), whereas there are 106,000 paid SAG members. Back Stage will probably have ads too -- it reaches more actors -- but ads are still less persuasive than a detailed brochure from one's own union. Will the A-listers finally take a public, prominent, organized stand against this movement towards a strike? Who knows.
For an actual strike to be called, the National Board has to authorize one by a simple majority vote. The slightly more moderate faction (Unite for Strength plus NY and Regional Branch Division members) has a slim majority on the Board -- probably only 1 or 2 votes (votes are weighted, so it's a little hard to tell the exact margin).
However, they'll be under pressure: the hardliners (the Membership First faction) will say that the vote represents the will of the members. They'll also remind the moderates that there's another SAG Board election coming up in September. The moderates will be split on whether to stand in the way of a strike and be labeled Benedict Arnolds in the fall, because lack of a strike means that SAG will have to accept a deal that the hardliners consider odious.
The leader of the moderate faction, Ned Vaughn, was quoted in the LA Times over the weekend criticizing the negotiating committee for giving up on mediation after only two (marathon) joint sessions (both sides plus the mediator). However, this was totally predictable. Moreover, the moderates out of NY are the ones who proposed the overall procedure (attempt mediation (which was bound to fail), then seek an authorization). The Board resolution setting this procedure passed 97% to 3% (2 dissenters out of 71 Board members) in October. So, the anti-strike constituency on the Board is somewhat lacking in cohesion or strategic vision.
I'm guessing the ballots will go out soon, so that SAG will have an authorization in hand (if they get the requisite 75% yes vote), or will actually be on strike, before the Golden Globes, which are January 11 ... or, at any rate, before the Oscars. The SAG strategy would be to reenact the tactics that ended the WGA strike earlier this year: destroy the Globes by getting stars to boycott them, and threaten to do the same to the Oscars the following month. Whether that strategy will work is open to doubt: getting the stars to boycott the Globes might not be as easy this time; and, in any case, the studios might decide to hang tough regardless of whether the Globes and even Oscars have to proceed without stars.
SAG's main issues are a couple of gaps in the new media deal offered by studios, a deal which has been accepted by all the other applicable
A Membership First source tells me that the negotiating committee offered during mediation to nonetheless accept the proposed new media language, if the studios gave assurances that they'd revisit the language in 3 years (when the contract would next be up for renewal) and if the studios increased the home video formula. I haven't verified whether this claim is true, but if so, the studios should have offered some movement on this. On the other hand, the economy has dramatically worsened in the last 6-9 months. SAG should have made this offer when something might have come of it. Now, everyone may suffer.
Still, it's almost beyond belief that SAG might strike -- over issues that amount to mere pennies for the next several years at least -- and would do so in the middle of the worst economy since the invention of talking pictures, literally. Unfortunately,
-----------------
Belatedly (I've been in transit to NY), here's a recap of the last few days, in case you'd like to know how we got to this sorry state:
On October 20, SAG called for mediation, and indicated they would seek a strike authorization if mediation failed. Over the next four weeks, the federal mediator met one on one, first with SAG, then with the AMPTP, then SAG again, and so forth, at the glacial rate of one meeting per week.
Next, the parties used allies to harden their positions. The AMPTP did this by conducting lightning-fast negotiations with IATSE, the union representing technical and craft workers. The existing IATSE deal doesn't expire until August, but the IA likes to negotiate early, and so do the studios. They reached agreement this Wednesday on a package that includes new media provisions similar to those that were incorporated in four earlier deals this year: Directors Guild, Writers Guild, AFTRA daytime deal, and AFTRA primetime deal. (AFTRA is a smaller actors union whose jurisdiction overlaps with SAG in television.) A key reason the AMPTP wanted this deal done now is that it allowed them to point to yet another endorsement of the new media template, reinforcing their refusal to give SAG concessions in that area that none of the other unions in Hollywood won. The studios point also to the drastically worsened economic climate since the template language was established.
SAG, for its part, drew strength from a claim advanced by the Writers Guild a couple days ago that the studios are already in breach of the WGA new media deal even though the ink is scarcely dry. The studios disagree, and the argument turns on some rather sloppy and ambiguous language in the contract regarding the effective date of one provision. It's not clear that the WGA is correct, but it's even less clear why the language was so loosely written, especially since the date clause in a related section is quite explicit.
In any case, having teed up their arguments, the parties and the mediator finally met jointly for marathon sessions Thursday and Friday. Mediation failed, and SAG issued a press release announcing that it would seek a strike authorization. The press release sets out no timetable, but it's understood that the authorization process takes about 30 days or so.
Follow Jonathan Handel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jhandel
Loading comments…
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
The AMPTP is feeling their oats after their success against the WGA, and rightfully so. As long as they have reality shows and game shows, they are very well-positioned against those who work on scripted shows. In the end, it all comes down to simple numbers: Scripted shows are, at best, performing only as well as reality/game shows. At worst, they're not performing as well. Think of the big show of today that EVERYONE talks about when they are on: Dancing with the Stars, American Idol, Survivor, The Hills, So You Think You Can Dance, Amazing Race, etc. Desperate Housewives, Ugly Betty, Grey's Anatomy, and CSI might make it in there, only occasionally. As long as scripted shows have consistently lack-luster numbers in terms of viewership, those who work on those shows are in are not in a very good position to bargain. The answer for those who work on scripted shows is simple: CREATE BETTER SHOWS THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT TO WATCH, AND YOU WILL BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO GET WHAT YOU WANT!!! It's not rocket-science.
I'm a SAG actor who will be voting against a strike.
Yes, we're being hosed by the studios. But we timed this all terribly. We should have worked with the WGA and AFTRA to coordinate a simultaneous strike. It would have made it shorter, more effective, and most importantly, decisive.
A strike now will not only hurt the actors, but everyone who makes his or her living in production, at an already very shaky time for everyone financially. We won't get the kind of support we gave the WGA, we'll get RAGE, and end up further behind than we are now.
Personally, I think the answer at this point, inadequate as it is, is to keep going as we are, wait until the next round of negotiations, and make sure we're aligned with the other unions next time.
I don't understand why residuals from internet distribution are a problem. I see the claims that the industry doesn't know how much money it will make from it, but that's ridiculous. They know exactly how much they are making right now, and while the growth isn't easily predictable, putting a percentage on it solves the problem. That way it would be the same sort of deal as with DVD/VHS sales (although I'd hope they'd argue for a higher percentage).
There are two models of internet distribution for profit: advertised streaming and pay-per-download. Pay-per-download is simple and I can't believe there is an argument over it. It is simply a different method for selling content directly to the consumer at a much lower cost to the studio than DVD. With advertised streaming, the site showing content typically gets paid by advertisers per viewer or per click. Again, the studio knows exactly how much they will make on a per viewer/click basis and can figure out a percentage to go to the actors.
Honestly, I don't see why this is complicated.
You know what.....let those SAG actors go on strike. I , for one, could care less. During the last strike I didn't miss any of the shows that weren't being filmed. At a time when many Americans are losing their homes, losing their jobs etc, does SAG really think we care that they're not getting the residuals they think they should have??? REALLY!!!
Would that it were that easy - strikes have lots of peripheral damage. Not to say that there aren't some real issues here but with so many businesses just barely hanging on a lot of people could experience a world of hurt. If as JH seems to think SAG was willing to "accept the proposed new media language, if the studios gave assurances that they'd revisit the language in 3 years (when the contract would next be up for renewal) and if the studios increased the home video formula" then that sounds like a workable compromise. Would be interesting to see SAG put that out as their official public position and see what the AMPTP response would be.
In this economy I don't think enough effort was put into finding a solution during this new round of talks (by both sides, neither group is either completely sinner or saints).
Think of the number of workers involved in productions with SAG actors. They would all be unemployed during a strike. It would be a huge blow to California's economy. It's much worse than the writer's strike. With the writer's strike, scripts that had been bought previous to the strike were still able to be used (although there were awkward rules involving revisions). With an actor's strike, all shooting that requires people has to stop. I'm not sure if SAG applies to voice acting for cartoons (I know cartoon writers are under a different union than screenwriters), so I suppose those could continue.
I'm a SAG actor. Not rich or famous, just a professional actor. I'm also a new homeowner struggling to pay the mortgage in the tough economy, and to earn enough through my union to qualify for health insurance.
I'll vote against the strike, for reasons too complicated for you to understand - you have no reason to understand, because it doesn't affect your life. But I want you to earn what you deserve, whatever your career is. And yes, you should want the same for me - not because I'm an actor, but because I'm a person.
People loooooove to resent actors for the cushy lives they invent for us in their heads. We're easy scapegoats. But the lives you imagine we lead have nothing to do with reality. If you learned enough to really understand the details, and reminded yourself to have a little basic decency and compassion, you might reconsider.
Cheers to you, rmetz! I'm a SAG actor myself, just barely getting by. I too am against a strike. But damn, all the misinformation out there about SAG actors is really starting to annoy me.
Most of us do NOT make anything close to a "cushy" living. We are busting our asses every day to make ends meet. If there were a separate "Star" union for actors, maybe all these detractors would be justified. But the VAST majority of SAG members need protection and a fair deal.
Like I said, I'm against the strike. But I hate seeing the crap out there that people think about us. SAG isn't there to fight for the stars... they don't need the Union's help. It's us little guys down the ladder who need protection.
Then you have the mother of all appeasers - AFTRA, who, in cowardly self-interest, broke from SAG for the first time in 27 years, ran to the AMPTP and made another quickie deal that satisfied the AMPTP, and sent the clear message to the producers "hey guys! If your looking for a union to pick up the slack if SAG drags it's feet on this deal, you know where to find us!"
Pure, unadulterated betrayal of actors for the express purpose of increasing jurisdiction, power, and income for the union. Unforgivable.
Then, along comes SAG, and they, led by Allan Rosenberg and Doug Allen, carefully read the proposal, vet it fully, and come to some rather obvious conclusions: the new media proposals are completely unacceptable for actors. As dangerous as they are for directors and writers, they're a game changer for actors, who rely for up to 50% of their incom
e on residuals.
Why? Because, simply put, the proposal attempts to clear a path to severe rollbacks on residuals over time. Instead of acknowledging that the internet, being the delivery system of the partial present and the complete future, and therefore, actors need to be tied into the profit stream via a percentage of the income from all internet content, both old and new, the AMPTP creates an odd system of "floors" over which SAG will have jurisdiction, and beneath which, the producers can work nonunion. The "floor" is 15k per minute, even though the average cost of original content for the internet is 2k per minute. Translation: with a little planning, the producers can should practically everything for the internet nonunion.
SAG objects because allowing nonunion work in its own contract is against the core principals of the union and not paying fair residuals for reuse of actors work is also a no-go.
The argument that the internet is about "pennies" is absurd on its face. Is the Internet's current original content coining money? No. Will it? You betcha, as Ms. Palin would say. When it becomes the sole deliverer of content, SAG understands it had damn well better be positioned for its fair share, or else the landscape will change and it won't be favorable to actors. Estimates that it could essentially strip actors, middle class actors, of the means to make a decent living, are accurate to anyone who takes the time to research and understand the importance of digital media. It is the future. It is already here. And it already isn't, and certainly won't be about pennies for long.
So, the argument then becomes, by Mr. Handel and anti-MF forces, and pro-merger with AFTRA forces "take the deal. Take it now. Don't strike. Don't even threaten to strike. Trust the producers. They say, in writing (the infamous "sunset clause") they'll renegotiate in three years."
Well, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy may be down with that, but any actor looking out for number one, as well as his or her own union, had better educate him or herself as to the likelihood the producers will do any such thing once they get this deal in writing.
Think of it: the AMPTP is ALREADY not paying the WGA the new media residuals they agreed to under the BAD deal, let alone the one SAG is asking for. The AMPTP promised the EXACT SAME THING during negotiations over the last huge technological leap - VHS/DVD - in 1984. THEY NEVER RENEGOTIATED. And, they act as if it is unwarranted for SAG to ask for even the slightest raise in the DVD residual rate, even though the current rate is ridiculously low, and has been since it was signed - IN 1984!
Now, after a long period of SAG's leadership being publicly vilified by SAG members themselves - Unite For Strength - and their supporters, as well as a whole host of others in the industry - called incompetent, liars, self-interested, arrogant, thieves, the list goes on, and is a lot worse than those examples, we had an election that brought in more "moderate" members to the board of SAG, to promote the anti-MF, pro-moderation agenda so many had been clamoring for.
The result? After these latest two marathon sessions, when the "moderates" got to see first hand the intransigence and arrogance and stonewalling and lack of good faith negotiation of Nick Counter, on behalf of his masters at the AMPTP?
15 to 2
15 to 2 to send out a strike authorization vote. From a diverse group, NOT PARTY line vote of both pro and anti-Membership First people.
The truth is the studios are looking to realign the whole compensation structure heading into the digital age. They DON'T have all the answers, but they DO have the answer to one thing: they want to severely limit their financial commitment to actors and other makers of product going forward.
The only question that remains is: will SAG, the last bastion of opposition to this power grab, stop them from doing so?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
