Why the WGA was Right and SAG is Wrong

There's a scene in Good Will Hunting when Will says that his foster father used to put a wrench, a stick and a belt on the table and said choose one. Robin Williams says that if it were him, he'd go with the belt. Will says he picked the wrench every time. Why? "Because f*ck him, that's why."

The dialog is satisfying because we've all been in a situation where clinging to our dignity felt worth whatever sacrifice had to be made. But how many times as a child were we told not to cut off our nose to spite our face? That's what Will does in picking the wrench and that's what SAG does if they choose to strike.

I was a staunch supporter of the Writers Guild strike. I picketed, organized, and wrote extensively about our very peculiar and vital labor movement. I gave up a lot of income during the strike, along with so many others, because I believed in it. And as strongly as I felt in favor of the necessary Writer's Guild Strike, I feel just as strongly in opposition to a reckless and dangerous Screen Actors Guild strike.

Much has happened in the last year. Namely, the most significant and crippling economic disaster in almost a century. And our industry specifically is still on its knees as a result of the WGA strike. While TV viewership is up this year, movie-going will very likely fall off considerably in the next twelve months as people have less disposable income. Our "recession proof" industry is nothing of the sort when people can't afford to buy a movie ticket.

The WGA had the sympathies of many others in the industry, the talk show hosts, the politicians, and the activists. Where have those people been through the many months of this current dispute? Crickets. At a time when the UAW is being called upon by many to take a hard look at its labor agreements as the auto industry falters, how can SAG justify such a dangerous and doomed attempt to improve upon a deal that was won in a completely different economy, after a bitter strike?

SAG has not refuted the AMPTP's assertion that they've been offered the same deal that the WGA and the DGA agreed to. Our membership signed off on that deal after four months of a painful work stoppage. Yes, of course the deal should have been better. But many of us believed it was the best we could do at the time. Many also felt that any benefit to continuing the strike was far outweighed by the clear and present need to get the town back to work. And that was then. The time we're in now isn't more hospitable to a work stoppage or a better deal. The only thing SAG's timing is more hospitable to is home foreclosure.

So, why does SAG's leadership want a strike authorization? I can only go by what they're saying. SAG President Alan Rosenberg said in an interview yesterday, "We deserve our day in the room. We never got that."

Every now and then someone will say the thing they're really thinking. If you were writing this as a screenplay you might call it a rising subtext. "We deserve our day in the room. We never got that." Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but what I hear in that sentence is not one man's desire for a moment in the room, but for a moment in the sun.

Mr. Rosenberg says that the strike authorization isn't intended to result in a strike, but to provide strength in the negotiation. Where have we heard that before? The authorization for war in Iraq? Beware of the leader who asks for power he hopes to never use. I want to believe that Mr. Rosenberg is purely committed to his members, but there is too much at stake right now to blindly give him the benefit of the doubt.

I still feel that the WGA strike was the right thing at the right time, but context is everything. The context we're in now is that our industry is still staggering from billions lost in the last strike. Millions of people around the country have seen their pensions evaporate with their home values. We're spending trillions of our children's money in bailouts as other industries crumble around us. And the employees of those companies, not incidentally, also happen to be our audience.

Context is everything. Anyone who doesn't realize that today's context is nothing short of terrifying, and chooses the wrench over pragmatism, doesn't deserve their "day in the room." More to the point, they've clearly not yet stepped outside of the room.

Comments

[mcyina]

Is it not enough that most actors make more money than writers do (whose work they interpret), now they want a piece of the DVD sells that is the property of the production team. Isn't your salaries enough? Will these actors agree to donate a potion their earnings to the DVD development? Are they ready for a pay cut?

[peachesmahoney]

What no one ever points out about these strikes is the affect it has on the people in Los Angeles who don't work in the industry. $1.3 billion dollars was lost in LA during the writers strike. Small restaurants went out of business and many of friends had to move to smaller apartments or to different cities. Knowing all of this, one would think BOTH sides would find a way to work out all the differences without flushing an entire cities economy down the toilet.

[krisgarfield]

Great point! I should of mentioned that in my emotional plea below. I have seen myself small businesses go under literally in the shadows of Fox and Sony. Those who are pro-strike must live in some sort of bubble.

[Pookster84]

I don't think SAG is responsible to anyone for the financial consequences if they should strike. If that were true, that would mean the AMPTP couldn't be held responsible if they refused to negotiate reasonably and fairly with SAG, so why not just stonewall and leave SAG holding the bag? While I don't think there should be a strike, I do think everyone in Hollywood should be placing their focus where it really belongs and putting pressure on the AMPTP to step up and make some compromises, particularly after the heinous way they behaved during their negotiations with the WGA.

SAG stood behind us WGA members when we struck. If SAG strikes, I'll walk their picket lines with them. Not just because I'd side with just about anyone against the AMPTP--Hitler! Bin Laden! Maybe even the Bush family!--but because SAG was there for us when we needed them.

Everybody needs to unite against the AMPTP and break their stranglehold on this town. If each studio had to negotiate its own contract with the unions, things might work out in a fairer and more equitable fashion. SAG isn't our enemy. The AMPTP is. Boycott their studios' awards screenings. Call, e-mail, write them with your opinion. And stop slagging SAG for standing up for themselves. Remember, this isn't about the Tom Hanks-level superstars; it's about the less famous actors trying to get fair compensation down the line for repeated future use of their work.

[SaraLA]

I'm voting yes to authorize a strike because MAYBE the producers will then begin to take seriously our right to a FAIR SHARE of the Hollywood pie. Yes, the economic situation in America is certainly less than stellar at this point, but there's no guarantee that in 3 or 5 or 10 years down the line we'll be any better off. Viewing media on the internet is the FUTURE and if we don't stake our claim now the producers will just railroad us into the ground, same as with DVD residuals. Maybe I'm just a crazy actress, but I can't see us backing down, not now, or ever.

[Michael Seitzman - Huffpost Blogger]

You have a deal for the internet in front of you, the same deal the DGA and the WGA signed after four months of striking. Your leadership is just saying no to it.

And fairness is an important measure, but not the only measure. I don't disagree that we deserve a better deal. I just think, as Thomas Friedman says more eloquently, that fairness right now isn't actually on the table.

[smag]

I have learned to be happy with little and happy with much. If the Hollwood actors and related professions go on strike then good for them if that is what they want. I am content with DVDs that I mostly bought at Walmart (around 200 )and if they faile to keep me entertained, well there are the old fashion books. With everything going on in this country I really have no time for the trials and tribulations of actors and unions. May the best whatever win.

[krisgarfield]

Alan Rosenberg is a little tyrant. He loves the drama. I've heard him rant and rage on NPR a few months back. He was irrational and incredibly unreceptive towards the very reasonable Aftra rep he was being interviewed with. Poor woman couldn't get a word in since he didn't come up for air. This twerp wants a war. It's all about him.

Great. I guess my fellow below the line workers and I will be unwilling players in his show.

[berkeleygirl1962]

Hard to be an elected tyrant when the vast majority of the rank and file (per other posts) could easily outvote the elites. You're hardly helpless here; you belong to a union, step up and organize (and good luck finding an ego-less ACTOR who's willing to volunteer as the lightning rod president of SAG).

[krisgarfield]

You have NO idea what we are up against. Organize? Not that easy. Rank and file are too busy trying to survive. By the way, Rosenberg can afford to "step up". His wife is making a very healthy living. I know many SAG "egoless actors" who feel he is going down a very dangerous path.

"Rank and file out vote the elites? " Gee...ok. I'll stop making the house payments and not get food on the table for my kids and screw up the already dissappering med benefits. I'll "step up" because you said I should. Miss Bekekygirl, have you not noticed that we are in a economic death grip? Now is not the time to strike. It would be stupid and suicidal for SAG and the rest of the industry "below the liners". Spare the scolding . We the rank and file are not crying helpless victims. It's all about the timing. Maybe you can pass that on to your "lightning rod" (ahem)friend Rosenberg.

[berkeleygirl1962]

Sigh. Great display of Labor Solidarity, Mr. Seitzman. Your time might be better spent organizing a CIO-style industrial union to replace the Hollywood craft unions; start by inviting everyone to a showing of "Salt of the Earth."

Are you seriously asking why the elected leadership of a democratic union would request standard strike authorization? Perhaps because that's how you get your parameters from your membership. Pre-negotiations, Bargaining Surveys produce Christmas-style wish lists of initial proposals (and there's nothing wrong with aiming high--that is how during my time a Big Labor Boss the workers i represented got themselves pay equity for female-dominated occupations, domestic partner benefits; creative flex time, apprenticeship, and leave programs; drug treatment in the health plans). A strike vote measures the membership's bottom line(s); collectively, you need to know what you're willing to "walk" for. Settle a contract without this measure, and leadership will be accused of "caving in."

Rosenberg as Bush? Gratuitous cheap shot. I share your disdain for congress' capitulation, but this is in no way similar. It would be more like asking the affected members of the military to take a vote on war authorization--diplomacy fails, they ship out. Makes it hard to cynically manipulate them for one elected leader's pursuit of the spotlight.

[larry278]

To HP's editors/monitors: This show biz stuff belongs on HP' "Entertainment" page. Move this blog & David Wolper's hysterics there. These labor-managment screeds are as bad as a made for TV drama's script. The acting is even worse. These screeds aren't front page stories. Put them by the full page, color ads; somebody might read them there. The 1st sentence of these show biz labor dispute blogs are dull. If you stick with the 1st paragraph, you will fall asleep. BORING.

[screamingbanshee]

it's not set in stone people! it's bad enough already! there is hardly a studio in town willing to green light ANY projects because of the defacto strike that has been going on since the WGA strike! only 4% of all SAG members work regularly FOUR PERCENT (does that sound familiar?) so the 96% that aren't working anyway, aren't going to get 0.003% of the online sales/downloads. and here's a little tip: when SAG sends out their paperwork, tricking members into voting for or not voting for a strike - if that SAG member votes to NOT strike, because that member, like the other 96% wants to WORK - that SAG member will get penalized! therefore, no one will vote at all, then it will be left up to the board members, and jim carrey JUST MIGHT get 0.004% on top of the 20 million dollars up front for Yes Man, plus residuals that will keep his great grandchildren wealthy! if SAG isn't careful, they are going to strike themselves obsolete!! DON'T STRIKE - WORK!!! take what you're given and renegotiate when the contract is up! just let people work for cryin' out loud! greedy, selfish, arrogant!

[berkeleygirl1962]

"...here's a little tip: when SAG sends out their paperwork, tricking members into voting for or not voting for a strike - if that SAG member votes to NOT strike, because that member, like the other 96% wants to WORK - that SAG member will get penalized!..."

1. how do SAG's leaders get elected without support from the 96% of proletarian actors? you pay dues, you're supposed to pay attention and VOTE.

2. how do these members get tricked into voting a particular way? specifics, please?

3. how does the elected leadership find out how "that [a rank and file individual] SAG member" voted against striking? and how do they "penalize" her?

Your solution--don't vote, force our elected leadership to make the decisions without our input--makes no sense. I think what you're really suggesting is that there be no union, and that actors should throw themselves individually on the mercy of their employers. Good luck with that.

[tjirish44]

I am in a union. I disagree that a vote for strike authorization is a mistake. It is a negotiating leverage tool. Having said that... Is SAG nuts? Striking in this atmosphere. Good luck with any support from public when people are losing their jobs left and right. One of things people are looking for is some entertainment from films, TV etc... SAG going to take that away by strinking. Really stupid move on SAG's part.

[LeftofTerry]

wrong.

it is never wrong for workers to be organized and strike.

when is the last time managment has asked the unions to tear up the contracts and renegotiate because times were going WELL? You know, "we've got all this extra money, so we want to give you more."

[mcthfg]

It seems that you're saying people should only seek to better their lives when it doesn't affect anything else. That's silly. There will always be some national problem (we were in 2 wars when the last strike happened - how selfish that the striking writers didn't think of the troops!), and to wait for it to pass is to continue to get screwed by the people for whom you work.

SAG members are being screwed RIGHT NOW. They can not wait, and shouldn'

Actually, I find it sad that there are not more general strikes. We should strike anytime the boss does something they don't like. Anytime they make a bad decision that affects the rest of our lives.

[asterios]

Hey, if things are going to be so terrible, maybe the AMPTP should do whatever it takes to ensure there isn't a strike. I.E. good faith negotiations and an actual give and take.

Why is it incumbent on the actors to eat a bad deal here? The average member of SAG doesn't have it hard enough?

[hudsuckerproxy]

"Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but what I hear in that sentence is not one man's desire for a moment in the room, but for a moment in the sun."

In the immortal words of Lily Tomlin: "No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." I think you're on to something with respect to Alan Rosenberg, Mr. Seitzman.

And yes, context IS everything.

[MiddleRed]

Ok, you actors are not listening to the key point.

To take my kids to a matinee and buy popcorn and drinks, it costs me over $40.

That was a hardship then. Now, we are having our hours cut to avoid massive layoffs. There goes the extra $40 right there. And then some.

Not only will I not be buying movie tickets, I won't be buying DVD's either. I'll be renting only, and watching the TV content online, because my god, cable costs a fortune, too.

If prices on tickets and video go up, more people losing money in this economy will not be buying tickets, DVD's or watching you on the TV.

Where will you be now?

I used to live in LA and new "working stiff" actors who didn't live the rich and famous celebrity lifestyle. I feel for you all, I really do. But I have to tell you, no one striking in this economy gets a whole lot of sympathy these days. Our union can't strike because we provide emergency services. Not only have we gone two years without a step or cost of living increase, now we have the mandatory furloughs cutting our pay.

Times are tough. Now is not the time for a strike. You can't see the forest for the trees. You may want more money, but the people consuming your product are making less.

DO NOT STRIKE.

[chagedorn]

Or to put it another way, the American people do not want to see a bunch of pampered, overpaid actors striking for a pay increase, regardless of how right they are or how many of them don't fall into the category of "pampered and overpaid." The idea of a strike is a non-starter and will only harm SAG and unions in general, right or wrong.

[chery]

Demonization is never a creative solution, only a tool of propoganda.

[jmby]

Chagedorn, I'll tell you how many actors do not fall into the category of pampered and overpaid. 98% of them. I am a casting director for film and TV, and the vast majority of actors struggle to pay bills, regardless of how hard they work or how talented they are. I was told by a revered film actor years ago that this business is the only one that does not necessarily reward the best and brightest in the profession, and I have learned that that statement is sadly corret. Actors, even brilliant ones, are constantly looking for a job. Those fortunate enough to book a few big national commercials often find they cannot later get cast in better vehicles because of those national spots. I know many, many actors who, despite the fact that you may recognize their faces from memorable dayplayer roles in a few pictures over the years, do not work often enough each year to qualify for health insurance. Many dayplayers don't qualify for residuals if their lines numbered less than five. I am not in agreement with Mr. Rosenberg on the issue of the strike and believe SAG made the bed it is now lying in, but please, do not allow what seems to be a bitter begrudging of the good fortune of some actors to cause comments such as the ones above.