The AMPTP Strikes Again

After over four months negotiating with the AMPTP conglomerates, the Screen Actors Guild announced they were finally asking their members for a strike authorization vote.

I can feel their pain.

Admittedly, I know more about the writers negotiations than about the actors. But the response from the AMPTP was instantly familiar, pure déjà vu, and equally swaggering, posturing and manipulative bullying. Even by AMPTP standards.

"SAG is the only major Hollywood union that has failed to negotiate a labor deal in 2008," the AMPTP blustered. "Now SAG is bizarrely asking its members to bail out the failed negotiating strategy with a strike vote - at a time of historic economic crisis."

Of course, what the AMPTP conveniently leaves out is that it took writers 100 days on strike to get their deal. And the reason SAG has no deal is because the AMPTP corporations have blocked them for four months. This is like blaming someone for not dating you, when you're the one who said 'no.'

Worse, though, is when some corporate PR whiz ludicrously floats the buzz words, "bail out," to invoke public antipathy of government loans. Not only isn't it "bizarre" for a union to approach its membership, it would be malfeasance if they didn't.

But mainly, it is the very point that we are in an economic crisis that every worker specifically needs the basic protections the conglomerates are refusing to give.

The challenge for SAG is that it's being pounded in a perfect storm. Economic conditions make this is a dismal time to strike. A related union, AFTRA, caved early and signed a very weak agreement. And other unions have settled.

Yet many issues SAG is fighting to get are unique to itself. And writers bettered the deal that directors got.

Ultimately, though, it's terribly scary to even think of striking. During the three months that the seven AMPTP conglomerates refused to settle with the writers, the entire city of Los Angeles took a huge hit.

For SAG, it's equally scary to think of the alternative, because of the risks to their future.

Consider: much of old media is shifting to New Media. TV will eventually blend with the Internet. It's already long-since begun.

(Though the AMPTP corporations cry no profit from the new-fangled Internet, the other day CNET reported that Hulu.com - a joint venture between NBC and News Corp. - just made a $12 million profit, streaming video.)

So, consider all this when you understand what the AMPTP multi-national corporations have offered to SAG for its future in New Media -

The proposed minimum rate is zero.
The proposed residual structure is zero.
The proposed overtime protections are zero.
The proposed "forced call" protections are zero.
The proposed protections for minors are zero.

As I wrote back during the WGA negotiations, the public understands "zero."

Here we go again.

It is not for me to speak to SAG needs. I can speak to AMPTP history, however. And as George Santayana wrote, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Back 24 years ago, the AMPTP offered only 4-cents for videocassette payment, because it needed "studying." A quarter-century later, when writers finally asked to increase this paltry amount for DVDs, the corporations demanded the request be removed. In good faith, the writers did. The studios got what they wanted - and then walked away.

Through the strike, the AMPTP companies kept insisting they needed time to study the Internet. Afterwards, an online interview with a Warner Bros. president was discovered from two years earlier, showing that their Internet division had already cleared 15,000 TV episodes.

Today - the AMPTP companies have repeatedly tried to subvert their agreement with writers. They've failed to make proper payments on streaming, blaming "technology problems." They've even claimed that the new rates for downloading doesn't apply to any material produced before the strike - and therefore insist they owe nothing on the studio libraries.

That is the history of who SAG is negotiating with. It is wise to keep such history in mind. At the very least, it makes four months of getting nowhere understandable.

It's likely that during these past four months, the AMPTP conglomerates have been playing theater games with SAG. After all, the AMPTP only negotiates seriously when CEOs themselves show up. Negotiating lawyers are only authorized to say, "No." The Writers Guild had 100 days of "No." Then, two CEOs appeared, and it was settled in a week.

After that settlement, AMPTP negotiators acknowledged in private that there was a 100-day strike only because they underestimated the writers' resolve; noting they would have otherwise settled beforehand.

That may be the biggest hurdle SAG faces now. A strike authorization shows that the SAG team has strong support, in hopes of avoiding a strike. This is the only time the AMPTP takes you seriously. Whether SAG members are willing to show that unified support during difficult times is what we will find out.

No doubt, through all this, some will paint the picture that Actors are Rich and Greedy - in reality, most actors scrabble at the edges, slowly pursuing their career, lucky to get a single speech in a single production. There are 120,000 members of SAG. Count the number of Big Stars you recognize. Now, subtract that from 120,000. That's the picture. It is a union trying to save itself and its middle class. Like most of America.

SAG faces grueling decisions, balancing its interests and future with AMPTP hard lines. Myriad voices in SAG will argue what is best for them. But making those arguments based on the goodwill, good faith and good word of the AMPTP conglomerates is a guarantee of eternal disappointment. The only voices in SAG worth listening to are theirs alone.

Comments

[kalifornia]

What most folks don't know is that 3 years ago when we negotiated our contracts, we were told to "wait" on new media and that we would negotiate for it this year when our contracts would come up for renewal. AFTRA went ahead this year when our contracts came up for renewal and got us ZIP, ZERO, NOTHING in this year's contract and told us they would negotiate for it in the next time our contracts came up for renewal (another 3 years away). That now amounts to 6 years that we have had to wait to get ANYTHING in new media. Meanwhile, our faces, voices, bodies, and the roles we play continue to stream on the internet, and we get NOTHING for it. Greedy, you say? Think again. If you don't know the history of what we actors have been fighting for, then you can't speak about it. Most of us are even lucky to get a co-star role these days, because the CELEBRITIES are the ones taking our roles---the very ones who deigned to NEVER do television. And the producers are echoing what is going on in our government......CORPORATE GREED!! They want to continue to rake in millions of dollars using our performances on the internet without compensating us for using us. Give me a break! THEY are forcing a strike---it's the only thing they HEAR.

[Diannanna]

I'm canceling my cable and never going to another movie. When the big media corporations go under and have sucked your unions dry, I'll step out of the library and see a play. Go ahead, ignore what is happening all around you and trust the guys with the "golden parachutes". There won't be any "taxpayer bail-out" for your industry. The one union that tries to defend itself is subjected to such horrific, inappropriate personal attacks, I can't even imagine what a sewer show business must be! The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result. Good luck believing the corporate line time after time, and here's hoping some of you grow some balls. Sounds like there's only one person in your business that has any. That loud "click" you hear is the rest of the country turning off this noise.

[HadEnoughCrap]

You have no clue what this is all about...try reading bthis;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-handel/sag-the-studios-what-are_b_149041.html
then try thinking before you assume that the little guy is always right anyone who disagrees with him has no balls.

[Diannanna]

Read it. Still seems to me like you're buying the same ol' line. Who says "non-starter"? Why not say "we're going back on our word. We are dishonorable." Being treated like that, to my way of thinking, is enough reason to hold their feet to the fire. You must be part of management. I can't understand why you so furiously expect "the little guy" (your phrase) to settle for less. You in particular are too strident and ugly-minded. So, yes, when someone's family abused by anonymous web-blowhards, my defaults to them. And, yes, I am predisposed to workers rights because of the failure of so much corporate greed policy. "the little guy" is already bailing-out everybody else. How are they supposed to afford it when the fruits of their labor is hoarded so blatantly by the stock-option bonus club? But hey, thanks for the link. it doesn't change a thing. Good luck destroying yourselves. I'm off to the library.

[HadEnoughCrap]

While I disagreed with many of the writers' unrealistic and pie in the sky demands at least they had leverage. SAG does not. If SAG goes on strike many of the productions can easily flip over to AFTRA (and many of the actors carry both cards) and the public won't be as aware of the difference. All that may happen is certain shows and actors will go on hiatus and be replaced with new content that won't ever go back to SAG.
This is more about the idealistic 'I have to something prove' behavior of Rosenberg than anything else. If he was a real working actor it might make more sense, but since he lives off of his wife's residuals (even if SAG goes on strike) he has nothing to lose. Though now that his wife is dumping him - many assume because of his strike stance - he might actually have to earn a living on his own unless she ends up paying the schlub alimony.

All this talk about 'new media' is silly as well. Despite what the produicers are claiming about profits to keep stockholders happy anyone who has tried to do business on the web (except porn) knows that it still isn't clear how to get people to pay for entertainment and show a profit. Re-visit it again in 3 years when all that info might be clearer and the economy is in better shape. STOP THINKING YOU'RE SPECIAL!!!

[JaneaneTheAcerbicGoblin]

If AFTRA can settle with the studios, so can SAG.

[Michael Seitzman - Huffpost Blogger]

The voices at the top of SAG have proven to be completely and utterly incompetent, self centered and narcissistic at every juncture, that trusting the goodwill, good faith and good word of those so-called leaders also happens to be a guarantee of eternal disappointment.

[sbowerman]

The number of U.S jobs lost in November: 533,000.
Considering a strike vote is beyond reckless.

[Diannanna]

This was such a pleasure to read. I never trust rants that question sanity and ascribe evil motives. I had no idea what the AMPTP actually was! If this is such a brouhaha then why don't the decision-makers in management show up? Why hide behind people that can only say "no"? It sounds like both WGA leaders and SAG leaders were there, but only two CEO's showed up AFTER a 100-day walk out! Strikes hurt, but it sounds like it took three months for the big media corporations to even notice. The pressure should be on them to avert this walk-out, not a union trying to do the right thing for its members. In my neck of the woods, the whole community gets behind the unions. We haven't had a work stoppage in decades. My heart goes out to you confused entertainment-types but be very careful about believing anything giant corporations say these days. The next thing you know they'll be asking for a bail-out. I'm with the workers on this one.

[heywhat]

I do sympathize with the thousands of talented actors who are not able to make a living by acting alone; however, I think that is due more to a lack of available roles than pay rates. Obviously, everyone should be paid fairly for his/her labors but SAG is asking many folks who are just barely hanging on to support them in a possible strike during some fo the most difficult economic times since the end of WWII. You end your remarks with "The only voices in SAG worth listening to are theirs alone." If that is SAG's stance then I hope its membership will understand when others decide that they must listen to and address their own particular circumstances when deciding whether to support SAG if it strikes.

[Intheway]

The connection you make between Hulu's profits and all those zeroes is impressive, until you take a closer look.

Hulu's content is from content created from network/cable television and film. All the content featured on Hulu's home page, on the "Most Popular" and Recent Additions page appear to be from shows currently or recently produced under SAG or AFTRA contract. All this content would be covered by the residual structure laid out in the LBF for content brought over from the original sources.

On the other hand, all those "zeroes" you list refer to original content made for New Media, and only to that original content that falls below the jurisdictional limits set forth in the LBF. If any shows featured on the Hulu site had been original New Media productions, they all would have triggered union jurisdiction by, at the least, the use of "covered performers." All those overtime and forced call and minor protections would be in place, because they are part of the basic agreement that would be brought into play.

Hulu makes it clear that the future of New Media, at least for the foreseeable future, is in professional production and the use of professional talent both in front and behind the camera.

The zeroes will still be there, but, in reality, aren't going to cover a great deal, if any, of the stuff that shows up on Hulu for the foreseeable future, and certainly the next three years.

[elizaW]

What you're leaving out is that if the writers , like the directors, handled the events leading up to the strike with less animosity and more logic there wouldn't have needed to strike. The deal they got at the end of the strike they could have gotten without going on strike... if their leadership hadn't been so inept. Many writers lost a lot of money because of the strike and it was UNNECESSARY. If SAG strikes it'll be an act of self-destruction.

[ponderingmuch]

I made my living as a non-star actor for 25 years. Times changed. We all started making only minimums, which was not enough to live on or get health insurance. Actor-friends of mine who played the "there's that guy!" parts made more than me, but still sometimes did not make enough to get SAG health insurance in any given year. I surrendered and found another profession, though those jobs are now mostly outsourced to India.

I am still a SAG member, and I am very torn. I probably just won't vote on striking, since I am really not able to be an active actor at this point.

But it was the practices of the AMPTP that cause it, in the first place.

I hope the working actors strike.

[BillSeward]

I'm the guy who bugged you by e-mail to write something. I had to wait a long, long time, but this is it.

thank you

[BaronKarza]

The AMPTP sucks but the industry can't take another hit at this time. Both working actors and under the line workers are still reeling from the strike last year and a new strike will will drive the final nail in the coffin of many people in this business that are barely keeping their head above water. Our union would be better suited by aligning itself with AFTRA and the WGA in the NEXT negiotiation in a couple of years when the new media picture is alot clearer. A new strike may force some very meager concessions from the studios but it will also destroy many lives in the process.

[DrBuzz]

RJ hits the nail, top dead center again (sorry for the mixed metaphor). The only thing missing -- which shows what a mensch he is -- is an "I told you so" to those actors (among others) who thought the writers should settle during their strike.

Gee, who called it right during the Director's strike? Um, that'd be Bob. Then who presaged the producers' game plan during the WGA strike? Hmm. Wow. Bob again. Who predicted virtually everything that the producers would try to pull not only post-WGA strike, but for the pending actors' action. Why Bo Diddley, that'd be Bob!

To be fair, a lot of great, dedicated, wonderful (and yes, hot) actresses and actors gave their all -- feet and soul -- for the writers' strike. But, ya know, those others... what would be the right thing to do...?

You know who you are. Guess what? On behalf of Bob, he told you so....

[LawrenceOfAcademia]

If SAG doesn't strike then we won't see a lot of hot actresses on a picket line being interviewed.