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

[BillSeward]

They want to STIFF us out of the 60 MILLION dollars SAG actors took as a hit because of lost wages while SAG supporterd the WGA (!?) in the writer's strike, AND, give up force majeure, a right we've had since Cagney was pushing grapefruit.

They want us to be walking sandwich boards for product placement in movies and TV, which means, beyond the sheer crassness of inserting that bullsh** into our professional lives - those of us who do commercials, WON'T GET THAT DETERGENT COMMERCIAL because we were forced to carry around a container of Tide Detergent through that entire scene we did in "Two and a Half Men."

[BillSeward]

Residuals. If, as Rosenberg explains in the KTLA interview, the producer makes content for ABC.com, and reruns it on ABC.com, actors, under the terms of this deal - for their residuals?

ZERO.

So, in cable boxes right now, and ALL cable boxes soon enough, you'll look at some show, maybe not even knowing that it was made NOT by ABC, but by ABC.com. Then, they rerun the show on ABC.com, which you can access on your TV through your cable box.

Residual to actor? ZERO.

Come on - this isn't even debatable. If actors think the AMPTP isn't up to no good with this contract? They're uninformed. Or just stupid.

Ask yourself: why won't they agree to a percentage deal? They make money on new media? SAG gets X% They DON'T make money on new media? SAG STILL gets same X%

Simple, right? so, why not?

Because that would require transparency and honesty. Ever heard of Hollywood accounting? Means, oh, you cover losses by moving money over, then you say the hit hasn't reached "profitability" yet, and you don't pay out those net points. For now. Maybe forever.

And a hundred other examples. Transparency=Death in Hollywood. THAT'S the BIG picture.

[BillSeward]

If you understand that the AMPTP made a decision - many, many months ago, to approach all the creative unions with essentially a fait accompli offer - which, given that the new media deal the DGA, WGA and AFTRA signed is essentially the same deal, then logic tells you, SAG - no matter when it went in the negotiations - first OR last, no matter HOW it approached the negotiations - with "moderation" or with balls - SAG was going to get the same deal, and have it shoved down our throat.

Witness the last negotiations. SAG offered all KINDS of sh** to make this work. The AMPTP's answer?

[BillSeward]

"NO."

Why? Because, they NEVER had any intention of good faith negotiation - they want to redefine the way we are paid, and NOT to our advantage. And SAG therefore HAS to get to that final conversation, where our negotiators get to say "here's the strike authorization - you really want to cause a work stoppage over 'pattern bargaining?' Really?"

If the answer if "yes?"

We're out. And I'm sure you'll be on the line for us Michael - just like we were for you.

[Michael Seitzman - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes, I will be on the line. It doesn't mean I have to agree with the reasons I'm there.

I'm a union guy, I'm a liberal, I believe in collective bargaining. I think the underlying principles of SAG's position in the negotiation is correct. My issue is over timing. Right now there is merit in the notion of living to fight another day. That day could be three years from now in a different climate.

[skhactor]

We actors didn't think your (WGA) timing for striking was good either. You could have waited and struck with us (SAG), but you figured you would get a better deal on your own. Never the less we supported you, and walked picket lines, and did not put bad press out about you. Thanks for the return favor.

[moderate1]

This seems very self-serving. An actors strike would effectively cripple your earning power yet again no? I wouldn't be surprised if the poor economic climate didn't serve to enhance the actor's negotiating power actually. Hollywood can't afford another stoppage, particularly now. They will be inclined to keep the machine running, despite some increased costs, as opposed to having another very public and very painful stoppage. Simplistic analysis, but very well could be the case.

You held the entire industry for ransom, justified or not, because you believed it to be in your best interest. You can not begrudge the actors for doing the same to you.

[llisa]

Exactly. Not to mention, the viewers never got back to pre-writer's strike numbers and a bunch of TV shows are getting the axe. If the actors walk off now, I'm sure even more shows will permanently lose viewers and be canceled.

I think you will find that the public will not thank you for this.

If you have a job and the ability to make your mortgage payments, you are luckier than many. Why would you want to screw it up?

[sisterdebmac]

Yeah, just ask Major League Baseball how many years and how much bending over backward it took to get the crowds back to the ballpark after their strike ended the 94' season halfway through...

I used to like Alan Rosenberg a lot as an actor. Now, I fear he's just a raging, out of control ego that no one can seem to get in-check. The Booosh comparison doesn't seem to off base at this point.

[AntiStrike]

That is why you should promote this petition. We're 8,300+ strong and growing hundreds by the hour. Let our voices be heard:

http://www.petitiononline.com/DealNow/petition.html

[BillSeward]

Voices heard where? In your head?

Anti. Strike.

Says it all.

[Vutan]

It seems to me, though, that MFers are hitching for a strike, and were hitching for one since the beginning.
And that could be accurate or not, however, Bill, it certainly is the image the current leadership sends out to all parties involved (i.e. every other union in the entertainment business, every owner of an ancillary business in the L.A. area, every artist who work in the entertainment business in any capacity).
Why is that? And mind you I'm no saying that the AMPTP guys are saints at all, and I'm a proud liberal..T­hat doesn't leave you off the hook, though. The fact that you chose to go fight a "monster", so to speak, doesn't automatically make you a hero. It's how you fight it that counts. If a guy like James Cromwell is baffled by the current SAG leadership tactics, I'd say that maybe MF current campaign to go to war isn't the most clear-headed, or even realistic, approach one could hope for...