The Denigration Express

Hollywood's labor troubles seemingly haven't been so bad since the days of police brutality at studio gates, when actors, writers and directors were first trying to unionize. That's an exaggeration, of course (and there has been much turbulence in the intervening years), but even in the dark and primordial days of the 1930s, it would have been hard for organizers to imagine the paradox of 2007-08: a writers strike over new media - the Internet and cell phones, both unimaginable 70 years ago - that lasted 100 days despite the fact that there's been scant money in these media to date and not much likely for the next few years.

The writers strike settled in February, but in the months since, the Screen Actors Guild has been flying apart at the seams like a rag doll spun through the air by a petulant 2-year-old. First came SAG's ill-fated attempt to marginalize a smaller actors union, an effort that only succeeded in helping that union, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, become a more effective rival of the guild. AFTRA ended up reaching a deal with the studios, while SAG bought itself a continuing stalemate. As a result, SAG members work under a contract that expired almost three months ago, while AFTRA members have the benefit of wage increases and other improvements under a new agreement.

The key sticking point? New media, again. SAG has rejected several portions of the template deal accepted this year by the Writers Guild of America and the Directors Guild of America, and by AFTRA in two separate agreements (one for daytime TV, the other for prime time). The studios refuse to back down, and so does SAG - yet the guild has little leverage (despite making some valid points), because it has no apparent ability to strike.

High threshold

That inability arises because a strike authorization, under SAG rules, would require a 75 percent affirmative vote of those members voting. It's a high threshold that SAG is evidently afraid it can't meet, since the leadership hasn't even sought an authorization. Instead, they've sent out a 12-page booklet attacking the studios' proposed deal, accompanied by a postcard that purports to ask members for an advisory vote on that deal. However, the wording all but preordains the result, and in any case the intent seems less to solicit members' opinions than to shape them. That's what political strategists call a "push poll."

The result of an intransigent yet deleveraged guild has been stalled contract talks. Now we're in the middle of the SAG board elections, further impeding negotiations - particularly since the hostility between the two main electoral factions, Membership First and Unite for Strength, rivals that of the Hatfields and McCoys. Riven by factionalism, split along geographic and economic lines, and divided on how to deal with AFTRA - merge with it? lay waste to it? wish it away? - SAG seems unable to maintain focus on the studios, its ostensible opponents. No such difficulties bedeviled the Writers Guild, let alone the staid Directors Guild.

As a consequence, the actors' blogosphere seethes with resentment, and the entire SAG ecology hurtles along on the denigration express, where name-calling and fear-mongering abound, endless blog comments are the norm, and calm analysis is in short supply. Journalists and commentators (this author among them) are routinely vilified, and at least one prominent journalist-blogger is herself fond of the reportorial equivalent of long knives.

Election ballots are due back Sept. 18, so the results will be known soon. Meanwhile, the advisory survey postcards are due back today, the 15th. Given the timing, the 12-page booklet - which unsurprisingly mirrors the platform of the dominant Membership First faction - amounts almost to an electioneering brochure paid for with union funds.

In any case, the election will probably settle nothing, at least in the short term. Dissension, and the long process of seeking a strike authorization, or restarting negotiations with the studios (depending on who wins the elections), all but guarantee that there'll be no deal before January at the earliest, or perhaps longer, since neither faction is likely to score a knockout punch. That timeline means more uncertainty in Hollywood for months to come, while at the same time driving the apparently-toothless SAG toward declining relevance.

The entertainment industry can ill-afford this continuing disruption - and is ready for it to end - but this particular television series will be on the air for at least the remainder of the fall season. The plot's turning out to be a tragedy with elements of farce, and it seems the show must go on whether the audience wants it to or not. Stay tuned - if you can stand it.

This article originally appeared Monday in the Los Angeles Business Journal.

Comments

[Clennon]

Regarding "The Denigration Express:"

I've been tying to post a comment about Jonathan Handel's use of a Nazi reference in his swipe at Nikki Finke.

When the editor/managers of the site put my comment on this page, the bottom line of my text was missing.

For the benefit of anyone who happened on the site and was curious about the missing half-dozen word in my comment, I submit the last three paragraphs.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The phrase "long knives" has also been employed in movies which portray Native Americans during the "Westward Expansion." The fictional "Indians" call the U.S. Cavalry "long knives," referring to the sabers the Cavalry carried in battle.

If this is the allusion Mr. Handel has in mind, then Ms. Finke is a U.S. Cavalry officer, slashing her way through a band of Native Americans.

If, as I believe, Mr. Handel is thinking of The Night of the Long Knives, then he is portraying Ms. Finke, wielding her figurative pen, as if she were a Nazi SS officer, furiously stabbing and slashing at the enemies of the Fuhrer.

[Clennon]

Did Jonathan Handel mean it THAT way?

"The Denigration Express," mentions a popular on-line show-business journalist and SEEMS to compare her reporting to a Nazi purge, known as "The Night of the Long Knives."

If my reading is correct, that would be some serious denigration.

Here is the end of paragraph 6. Handel is discussing the factional struggles within the Screen Actors Guild, and their spill-over:

"Journalists and commentators (this author [Handel] among them) are routinely vilified . . . ."

(then, taking aim at Nikki Finke of Deadline Hollywood Daily) . . .

" . . . and at least one prominent journalist-blogger is herself fond of the reportorial equivalent of long knives."

####################################################
The Night of the Long Knives . . . was a purge that took place in Nazi Germany between June 30 and July 2, 1934, when the Nazi regime carried out a series of political executions . . . . (Wikipedia)
####################################################

The phrase "long knives" has also been employed in movies set during the Westward "Expansion." The fictional "Indians" call the U.S. Cavalry "the Long Knives," referring to the sabers the Cavalry carried into battle.

If this is the allusion Mr. Handel has in mind, then Ms. Finke is slashing her way through a horde of Native Americans.

On the other hand, if Mr. Handel is thinking of The Night of the Long Knives, then he's portraying Ms. Finke, wielding her figurative pen, as if she were a Nazi SS officer, furiously stabbing and

[mheister]

In writing this write before SAG's poll results are announced, mogul water-carrier Handel is doing the AMPTP's advance spin work.

Now the results are in, and it's very lopsided. More than 87% of the 10,000+ actors who responded are in favor of continuing negotiations. By implication, these actors would also have been against the Schedule A deal mogul-lapdog union AFTRA took just a couple of months ago.

What the AMPTP and Handel in his heart of hearts knows is that the vast majority of these 10,000+ are the same actors who would vote in favor of a strike authorization. They're also the ones who are going to carry picket signs, put up websites, make videos, blog, and generally take it to the AMPTP.

No amount of mogul spin will change this, and they know it.

It's time now for the AMPTP to finally get reasonable with SAG.

[MrsWakely]

Actors - middle class actors that is - rely for up to 50% of their income on residuals. Signing this deal cuts that in half, because producers have already begun the practice of "move over" whereby they don't rerun an episode on the network, but make it available on their internet arm, devaluing the episode for network rerun and resulting in a 50% drop in the actors income from that work.

This is, in fact, already happening to actors.

AFTRA has signed this deal because it wants to continue to further it's competition with SAG for jurisdiction, money and power. AFTRA has absolutely no interest in "what's best for the actor" or they would have honored their pledge this year to bargain collectively with SAG, as they had done for 28 straight years. ("Phase 1") AFTRA's leadership lied. AFTRA has a long history of hostile and predatory action towards its "sister" union, SAG, by selling actors well below established SAG prices, and agreeing to substandard wages, benefits and residuals to sign deals with producers. AFTRA has hurt the middle class actor in consistent and demonstrable ways for years, and by signing this deal, they have made it much harder for SAG to get a fair contract. Unpleasant facts, but, there they are.

[MrsWakely]

SAG will find out two things in the next two days:

Does the current leadership of SAG, led by the faction Membership First, retain their majority?

Do the results of the poll indicate the membership of SAG supports the leadership in its current efforts to secure a fair and honorable deal from the producers?

If the answer to those two questions is "yes," a strike authorization vote will likely be sent out. If the 75% threshold is reached, SAG will then inform the AMPTP they have two choices:

[MrsWakely]

First: Give SAG a fair deal, with no non-union work in it's own contract, pitting it's members against a tide of non-union "talent" rushing in to fill the void to create new content for the internet, AND, pay fair residuals on SAG actors work on the internet by agreeing to some sort of a percentage deal which would say "if the AMPTP makes money on a new piece of original content for the internet, SAG gets paid from first airing and first dollar recouped, and the actor gets a fair residual for reuse in perpetuity. If the AMPTP does NOT make money on a project or LOSES money, the AMPTP has NO fixed obligation to SAG.

That's simple, yes? Protects SAG. Protects the AMPTP, giving them the "flexibility to experiment" they say they can't have unless they get to use non-union actors.

Second: face a SAG strike. A SAG strike, as unfortunate and destructive as it could be, would cost the AMPTP billions of dollars. It would become an untenable situation for the producers very quickly.

And why? Because the producers, doing what they do (see first paragraph above) see things very simply: "45 Billion is good - 50 Billion is better."

Either this arrogance, this greed, this destruction, by these multi-millionaire executives and their billionaire corporate overlords, is answered with solidarity and resolve, or, the middle class actor is, for all intents and purposes, out of business.