# Actors Strike



## phrelin

It appears we face more labor strife affecting our favorite TV shows.:nono:

From the LA Times:


> Heightening fears of an actors strike this summer, one of Hollywood's two major performers unions voted Saturday to break off its 27-year joint bargaining pact with its sister, the Screen Actors Guild, leaving each to negotiate separate new contracts with the major studios.
> 
> The 11th-hour move by the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists is the latest thunderclap in Hollywood's winter of discontent, which has seen the television industry upended by a 100-day strike by screenwriters.
> 
> It injects a new element of uncertainty in the television and movie industry by raising the possibility of an actors walkout this summer, just as some shows are returning to the air after a three-month absence and the movie industry is trying to get back on its feet. Such a strike could be a further blow to the local economy, already coping with a housing downturn and possible recession.


----------



## Doug Brott

Could also lead to us viewers towards choosing an alternate entertainment source ..


----------



## PTravel

Virtually all episodics, sit coms and films are SAG jurisdiction. AFTRA covers the soaps, talk shows, news, radio programming and a few sitcoms. Even if AFTRA were to strike, I don't think it would be as devastating to programming as the WGA strike. Odd, though, that AFTRA won't negotiate along with SAG. For the last 25 years or so, the two guilds have been moving closer and closer to merger.


----------



## n3ntj

Good, let 'em strike.


----------



## sdicomp

phrelin said:


> It appears we face more labor strife affecting our favorite TV shows.:nono:
> 
> From the LA Times:


OH NO!!! More REALITY TV!!:nono:


----------



## Mark Holtz

Turner Classic Movie Marathon!!!!


----------



## tcusta00

No NO NO NO NO NO NOOOOOO!!!

I can't deal with the prospect of more reality shows:

"Dancing with people you've never heard of" 
"Survivor: Manhattan: we're running out of exotic islands, sorry"
"The Simple Life: Paris & Britney - new BFFs"
"The Apprentice: Find Donald a new hairstyle."

:sure:


----------



## Supramom2000

tcusta00 said:


> No NO NO NO NO NO NOOOOOO!!!
> 
> I can't deal with the prospect of more reality shows:
> 
> "Dancing with people you've never heard of"
> "Survivor: Manhattan: we're running out of exotic islands, sorry"
> "The Simple Life: Paris & Britney - new BFFs"
> "The Apprentice: Find Donald a new hairstyle."
> 
> :sure:


I vote they hire you as a comedy writer!! That was hilarious. :hurah:


----------



## davring

Maybe it's time to let some new actors and writers have a chance, bring on the scabs


----------



## chris0

PTravel said:


> Virtually all episodics, sit coms and films are SAG jurisdiction. AFTRA covers the soaps, talk shows, news, radio programming and a few sitcoms. Even if AFTRA were to strike, I don't think it would be as devastating to programming as the WGA strike. Odd, though, that AFTRA won't negotiate along with SAG. For the last 25 years or so, the two guilds have been moving closer and closer to merger.


The Yahoo news article that I read said that the AMPTP issued a statement saying that it looks forward to bargaining with AFTRA. They didn't mention SAG. That doesn't look good.


----------



## lwilli201

chris0 said:


> The Yahoo news article that I read said that the AMPTP issued a statement saying that it looks forward to bargaining with AFTRA. They didn't mention SAG. That doesn't look good.


Could it be that the AFTRA members suffered more during the last strike? SAG probabley wants to much which would result in a long strike which AFTRA does not want. Or could it be the other way around. At any rate, they have enough differences to cause the split.

I could be wrong, but I think the SAG membership has deeper pockets than the average AFTRA member. IMHO


----------



## PTravel

It's been a long time since I've been in the business, but I don't recall very much of difference between what AFTRA and SAG wanted out of the producers, particularly considering that virtually all actors are members of both guilds (great when you qualified for insurance with both, lousy when you had to pay dues to both ).

BTW, reality shows are almost all AFTRA. I also wouldn't read anything into the statement from the producers about looking forward to negotiating with AFTRA. It simply means they'll sit down with both separately -- and why wouldn't they? It's an opportunity to play one guild off against the other. I'd like to know more about the reasons responsible for AFTRA's decision.


----------



## chris0

lwilli201 said:


> Could it be that the AFTRA members suffered more during the last strike? SAG probabley wants to much which would result in a long strike which AFTRA does not want. Or could it be the other way around. At any rate, they have enough differences to cause the split.
> 
> I could be wrong, but I think the SAG membership has deeper pockets than the average AFTRA member. IMHO


I really have no knowledge of the relationship between AFTRA and SAG.


----------



## chris0

PTravel said:


> I also wouldn't read anything into the statement from the producers about looking forward to negotiating with AFTRA. It simply means they'll sit down with both separately -- and why wouldn't they? It's an opportunity to play one guild off against the other. I'd like to know more about the reasons responsible for AFTRA's decision.


I just found it interesting they didn't mention SAG, almost as if the AMPTP was snubbing them. But it probably is more of them setting it up to try and play one side against the other.


----------



## PTravel

chris0 said:


> I really have no knowledge of the relationship between AFTRA and SAG.


First of all, SAG and AFTRA are both guilds, not unions (as they'll tell you constantly when you're a member). The difference is that unions have hiring halls and assist members in getting work. Neither AFTRA nor SAG do -- they exist exclusively to protect the interests of working actors, i.e. the wealthier and more successful performers. When I was working in the industry (about 20 years ago), 95% of SAG members made less than $10,000 / year acting, but still paid 98% of the costs of running the guild through dues and compulsory contributions by producers to the pension and welfare fund. In any given year, more than 90% of the membership didn't work at all. I doubt if things have changed much.

Originally, AFTRA and SAG covered completely different jurisdictions. AFTRA covered "television and radio," whereas SAG covered film. SAG is the older guild, dating back, if I recall correctly, to the 30s and the "White Rats" who first organized actors in the days of studio moguls and contract players. As Hollywood developed, there was more and more overlap -- filmed television shows were usually (but not always) done under SAG agreements, whereas live television, videotaped shows and radio was, almost always, done under AFTRA. Eventually, it was less a function of where the final product was shown, or even the medium in which it was recorded, and more a function of the agreement entered into by the studio at which a project was shot. I remember doing a couple of filmed sitcoms that were done under AFTRA because they were shot at a studio that had an AFTRA agreement, and I also did an MOW (movie of the week) for PBS under a SAG contract.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, virtually all actors in LA (and many in NY) are members of both guilds. The guilds also have a reciprocal agreement (and this includes AEA -- Actor's Equity, the stage guild) that lets you join the other sister guilds once you've worked in one. SAG and Equity are closed guilds -- you can't join unless you're cast in a SAG or Equity production. Of course, the Catch 22 for beginning actors is that no one will cast you unless you're already a guild member (and, as I recall, producers had to pay a fee for casting non-union talent to get them into the guilds). Agents, also, wouldn't touch you if you weren't union and, at least today, it's almost impossible to get work without an agent (though, for a short period of time in the 80s, I helped to change that in Hollywood, but that's another and much longer story).

For a long time, the loophole for new actors was that, unlike SAG and Equity, AFTRA was completely open -- you didn't need to be cast in an AFTRA production to join, you only needed to pay your initiation and you were in (it may still be open, I'm not sure). Many of us bought our way into AFTRA and found ways to "work" under an AFTRA contract, thereby qualifying us for membership in SAG (half-initiation). As I recall, Equity work also qualified you for membership in SAG, and vice versa.

Because the nature of the work, as well as the membership of AFTRA and SAG, are, for all intents and purposes, identical, there has long been an impetus for the two guilds to merge. Back when I was active, merger was "imminent." Some 20-25 years later, the merger discussions are, as far as I know, still on-going. My recollection was that some time ago, SAG and SEG (the Screen Extras Guild) merged. This was rather controversial because extras are not actors (both practically and as a matter of the MBA, the Minimum Basic Agreement between the guilds and the producers). No actor would ever knowingly admit to doing extra work, which was regarded as "living set dressing" -- actors were artists, whereas extras were people who owned a tuxedo. Actors were directed by the director. Extras were told what to do by the Assistant Director and never, ever spoke a line; if an extra was given direction by the director, they were actually promoted into SAG -- directors would take great care not to make that mistake (one of my friends got her SAG card this way when she did extra work on a sitcom, the casting director had failed to cast a one-line part, and the director picked her out of the crowd to say the line). Actors had private dressing rooms. Extras changed in public spaces. On location, actors were given catered meals. Extras either weren't or ate somewhere else (I don't know where they ate, but never with us). Actors never had to stand on the set for lighting and camera blocking -- stand-ins were used. Extras always had to stay on the set. And so on.

When I was acting, I would never have considered working as an extra, and would have been insulted if someone asked me if I had. Because of the stigma attached to extra work, as well as the fact that every SEG member would become "qualified" to work as a SAG actor, the merger was extremely controversial -- far more so than the proposed AFTRA/SAG merger.

My guess is that AFTRA and SAG haven't merged because too many guild officials have too much vested interest in keeping their positions of power -- the mechanical problems of harmonizing the pension and health plans, etc., are easily reconciled.

I hope this helps to answer your question.


----------



## chris0

PTravel said:


> I hope this helps to answer your question.


Um...I didn't actually ask a question. But I enjoyed the history lesson nonetheless. Thanks.

The real question is...where can we see your acting work?


----------



## belunos

PTravel, do you have a blog or some kind of write-up on your experience in the industry? I find your writing on the subject very entertaining and informative


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Great mother of moses. Jiminy Christmas. These people are just BEGGING people to find something better to do than watch TV, aren't they?


----------



## PTravel

chris0 said:


> Um...I didn't actually ask a question. But I enjoyed the history lesson nonetheless. Thanks.
> 
> The real question is...where can we see your acting work?


I'm sure it's re-run somewhere but, believe me, you wouldn't be impressed. 



belunos said:


> PTravel, do you have a blog or some kind of write-up on your experience in the industry? I find your writing on the subject very entertaining and informative


I don't. This was a long, long time ago. I quit acting to become a lawyer -- the last professional job I did was an ill-fated pilot with Eva Gabor in, I think, 1990 (during my first year of law school). True story: my study group partner in law school was Barry Gordon who, at the time, was president of SAG while we were in law school together. That says a lot, I think, about both acting and the legal profession.


----------



## Drew2k

Well, as much as I don't want a strike, it would give me the opportunity to catch up on a LOT of DVDs that I still have shrink-wrapped! :lol:


----------



## longrider

Drew2k said:


> Well, as much as I don't want a strike, it would give me the opportunity to catch up on a LOT of DVDs that I still have shrink-wrapped! :lol:


I know that feeling very well :lol: :lol:


----------



## The Merg

PTravel said:


> I'm sure it's re-run somewhere but, believe me, you wouldn't be impressed.
> 
> I don't. This was a long, long time ago. I quit acting to become a lawyer -- the last professional job I did was an ill-fated pilot with Eva Gabor in, I think, 1990 (during my first year of law school). True story: my study group partner in law school was Barry Gordon who, at the time, was president of SAG while we were in law school together. That says a lot, I think, about both acting and the legal profession.


Eva Gabor was still alive in 1990?!? Wow. No wonder it was ill-fated. I think most people didn't even know she was still around. Is she still around??? 

- Merg


----------



## tcusta00

Stuart Sweet said:


> Great mother of moses. Jiminy Christmas. These people are just BEGGING people to find something better to do than watch TV, aren't they?


Sure seems that way doesn't it?!


----------



## bicker1

More like, it's just that everyone wants more money. Consumers and employers want to pay less; suppliers and employees want to be paid more. And in cases with collateral damage potential, like this, both sides want the _other_ side to "give way". Both sides see the _other_ side as the ones who are hurting (in this case) the viewers, the viewer-base, whatever.


----------



## PTravel

The Merg said:


> Eva Gabor was still alive in 1990?!? Wow. No wonder it was ill-fated. I think most people didn't even know she was still around. Is she still around???
> 
> - Merg


She is not -- my recollection is that she died within a year or two of the pilot. She was rather . . . challenging . . . to work with. I joined the cast in the final week before we shot on a Monday. The shoot was for Friday. When I came in to work on Thursday, which should have been for the final blocking rehearsals and run-throughs, we found out that, at network insistence, the show had been completely re-written, some parts recast (not mine) and some actors fired (including co-star, Darrin McGavin, also now deceased I think). Eva was (understandably) a little freaked out. The next day, with only one full day's rehearsal, we did a dress rehearsal before a live studio audience, which was taped, and then, in the afternoon, we shot the show. At the dress rehearsal, Eva fluffed a line in a scene that I had with her (stars were allowed this luxury -- I was not  ). When she realized what she had done, I saw her eyes flash and, for a moment, I really thought she was going to hit me. I actually flinched. Then she seemed to remember there was an audience present and made a joke. The studio audience and I laughed and, at least for the moment, I was safe. 

Notwithstanding this experience (and one other), I found, as a general rule, the bigger the star, the nicer they were. This is a business were you don't succeed by being difficult to work with.


----------



## Drew2k

Eva Gabor and her filmography: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001247/

She died in '95.

Last work was *Burke's Law*, three years prior she did *Dream On*. And who knew in 1990, there was "*Return to Green Acres*"?!


----------



## Greg Alsobrook

Doug Brott said:


> Could also lead to us viewers towards choosing an alternate entertainment source ..


more time spent on my Apple TV 



n3ntj said:


> Good, let 'em strike.


yup



sdicomp said:


> OH NO!!! More REALITY TV!!:nono:


agreed



tcusta00 said:


> No NO NO NO NO NO NOOOOOO!!!
> 
> I can't deal with the prospect of more reality shows:
> 
> "Dancing with people you've never heard of"
> "Survivor: Manhattan: we're running out of exotic islands, sorry"
> "The Simple Life: Paris & Britney - new BFFs"
> "The Apprentice: Find Donald a new hairstyle."
> 
> :sure:


!rolling



davring said:


> Maybe it's time to let some new actors and writers have a chance, bring on the scabs


maybe they won't be quite as money hungry...



Stuart Sweet said:


> Great mother of moses. Jiminy Christmas. These people are just BEGGING people to find something better to do than watch TV, aren't they?


!rolling ... for real ... guess I'll have more time to catch up on stuff around the house...



tcusta00 said:


> Sure seems that way doesn't it?!


----------



## phrelin

From The Holloywood Reporter:



> SAG has beaten AFTRA to the bargaining table.
> 
> On April 15, SAG plans to sit down with the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers to begin formal negotiations on a new contract.
> 
> The meeting is set for 10 a.m. at AMPTP headquarters in Encino.


But its worth noting the following from MediaDailyNews:


> AS THE WRITERS' STRIKE CAUSED upheaval early this year, the average cost of a prime-time spot dropped 12%, while even "American Idol" couldn't prevent a notable slide at Fox.


----------



## tcusta00

Gawd, I just hope they realize this could end up costing them (the actors) some big bucks. My prediction: If they (as in: writers, actors, etc) strike long enough and this ends up in a pause of say, over a year, in scripted TV, there is going to be an even bigger onslaught of reality TV. While it won't bring in the viewship and ad revenue that a scripted show would, it will still get something to pay the bills. The networks will eventually just move more programming to that format since it's easier and cheaper to produce and the actors and writers will either be out of work, or have to lower their rates. Then of course, there's going to be the stagehand strikes, janitors strikes, cafeteria workers strikes....

That's my take, as a consumer of TV. I don't like it, but I think it's where we're heading. Look at all the new reality shows that have come out or will be coming out this year as a result of the writer's strike.


----------



## phrelin

See Zucker Warns Actors Strike Could Be 'Devastating' and Studios pressure SAG with letter.

With the SAG leadership including mostly those still angry about the DVD thing the last time, I don't understand the studios trying to provoke a war of words in the press. Between now and June, I suppose they could force a strike and lay off a bunch of people they missed earlier this year.


----------



## harsh

davring said:


> bring on the scabs


The politically correct terms are "limeys", "canucks" to a lesser extent, "aussies".


----------



## phrelin

harsh said:


> The politically correct terms are "limeys", "canucks" to a lesser extent, "aussies".


Hmmmm. You may have pointed out the obvious studio strategy.


----------



## mightythor88

I worked in the TV industry for 10yrs and I know the people I keep in touch with all say they are dreading the prospect. They still havent gotten right since the writers strike and things just started picked up in the last couple of weeks. Another strike will be very rough on the L.A. economy. 

I can only hope they can work something out, but there is less money from advertising due to DVR's etc so the fight for the pie is fiercer than ever.


----------



## phrelin

To understand why the producers' alliance wanted the Writer's Strike for a few months followed by a settlement with the Director's Guild, read the article in the NYT is headed Guild Chief for Actors Is No Pacifist


> The son of a swing-era musician, Mr. Rosenberg was a war protester in the 1960s, at one point joining the Black Panthers. He said he was spurred to become involved in organized labor in Hollywood after President Ronald Reagan's firing of striking air traffic controllers in 1981. He first ran for a position on SAG's national board earlier this decade, and was elected president of the guild in 2005, narrowly defeating a more moderate candidate, the actress Morgan Fairchild.
> 
> Some in Hollywood say Mr. Rosenberg's move into the role of confrontational guild leader comes less from politics than from personal psychology. His older brother, Mark Rosenberg, was a noted civil rights activist who became president of Warner Brothers before dying of heart failure in 1992 at the age of 44. Leading SAG in its battle to secure a ground-breaking labor contract allows Mr. Rosenberg to continue his brother's work.
> 
> "There's no doubt that he cared deeply about content creators, and that I share that with him," Mr. Rosenberg said. While not rich by Hollywood standards, Mr. Rosenberg is not exactly what most people consider middle class, either. He is married to Marg Helgenberger, a millionaire because of her lead role on the CBS drama "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation."


 The whole industry was made to suffer by the producers' alliance in order to create as much pressure as possible on the SAG leadership. But SAG may not capitulate.:nono2:


----------



## phrelin

From Variety:


> After two days of contract negotiations with the majors, the Screen Actors Guild is looking to put some pressure on the studios by signing interim deals with indie feature producers that would allow actors to continue working on select projects even if a strike occurs.


----------



## phrelin

From Variety:


> The Screen Actors Guild's third day of negotiations with the majors has launched with no fireworks -- even though the two sides were far apart when talks started earlier this week.
> 
> ...Informed sources confirmed SAG did not back off its promise to make demands that won't be granted by the AMPTP, most notably an increase in the DVD residuals and far sweeter new-media terms than those in the DGA and WGA deals.
> 
> In informal talks with SAG leaders earlier this month, Disney president Robert Iger and News Corp. president Peter Chernin made it clear to SAG national exec director Doug Allen and SAG president Alan Rosenberg that the majors will only make a deal that's patterned after the directors' and writers' deals.


----------



## phrelin

The pressures on SAG are building. See

TV crew members still feeling effects of writers strike

Actors guild in tough spot just 9 days into talks

The question is whether the more militant SAG leaders can stand the heat and whether the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers has saved some bone they can throw to the actors so those leaders can save face.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Welcome to the nightly news for March 1, 2009. 

While it's clear that the DTV transition went very smoothly, industry insiders are claiming that the real reason for the smooth transition is that no one is watching television anyway. 

In other news, NBC Universal announced plans to spin off hulu.com for $645 million, to shore up the cash-starved company that has seen so few ad sales since it switched to a 24-hour-a-day "Deal-or-No-Deal" format.


----------



## phrelin

Stuart Sweet said:


> Welcome to the nightly news for March 1, 2009.
> 
> While it's clear that the DTV transition went very smoothly, industry insiders are claiming that the real reason for the smooth transition is that no one is watching television anyway.
> 
> In other news, NBC Universal announced plans to spin off hulu.com for $645 million, to shore up the cash-starved company that has seen so few ad sales since it switched to a 24-hour-a-day "Deal-or-No-Deal" format.


I agree with the first part, but don't underestimate the likely success of NBCU on the web. Zucker appears to have a big plan (as does Disney and Fox). Meanwhile Viacom and CBS fight over dwindling premium channel income and The CW takes it's stuff off the web in a really stupid attempt to shore up TV viewing among the 10-to-16 year old demo.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I guess I wasn't clear enough... I meant to imply that hulu would be NBCU's only success and they would need to sell it to finance their other operations.


----------



## Mark Holtz

Ripped from the headlines of next year....

ABC has promised. "Dancing With The Stars", "More Dancing With The Stars", and "Even More Dancing With The Stars".  They may go with an additional 4-8 showing to replace the 15-16 series that they do not have fresh episodes for.

CBS, meanwhile, has switched to a 7 day a week movie format featuring all the movies from the Paramount library. They claim that the 45th viewing of Raiders will bring in more than 7 viewers per Neilson area.


----------



## phrelin

Well, the AMPTP (producers) have been blustering in the press for the past two weeks. I think they may be underestimating the resolve of the militant SAG leaders. From Variety:


> With Hollywood's hopes for labor peace hitting the skids for now, the Screen Actors Guild and the majors will pull the plug today on three weeks of largely unproductive talks -- with no sign of compromise by either side.
> 
> After today's talks conclude, no new SAG negotiations are planned even though the guild's contract expires June 30. And SAG leaders may even seek a strike authorization vote soon.


Even a 60-day strike beginning July 1 would seriously alter the fall tv landscape.:eek2:


----------



## Doug Brott

Does anyone remember Eastern Airlines? Wonder if this strike will have an irreversible affect.


----------



## bicker1

The writers' strike might already have. The smaller actors' union has already settled. Makes you wonder what the SAG is thinking.


----------



## phrelin

Let's hope they are thinking carefully, from The Hollywood Reporter:


> SAG and the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers have agreed to continue their formal talks on the actors contract through Tuesday.
> 
> In a joint statement, the union and producers said they "have agreed to extend their negotiations on a day-to-day basis, excluding Sunday, through Tuesday, May 6, at 5 p.m. We have no further comment."
> 
> The announcement came as the entertainment industry held its breath Friday to see what, if anything, would come out of what had been the last day scheduled for talks between the two organizations.


----------



## phrelin

From Variety:


> The session -- the 17th since negotiations began April 15 -- comes in the wake of SAG's first significant concession Friday morning to drop its demand for a doubling of DVD residuals. Talks had been scheduled to conclude later that day but the two sides agreed to extend negotiations through Tuesday afternoon.
> 
> SAG's revised DVD proposal called the companies to increase pension and health contributions on DVD residuals. SAG also agreed Friday to drop several pay hike demands including a 50% increase for guest stars on TV stars.
> 
> But it remains unclear whether SAG and the congloms can make enough progress in the next two sessions to reach a deal by the self-imposed deadline.


----------



## phrelin

From Deadline Hollywood Daily:


> This is a virtual repeat of how the group representing the Big Media companies acted during bargaining with the WGA, including how the AMPTP and moguls pitted the directors guild against the writers guild. Only this time the AMPTP is manipulating actors versus actors. I'm told that today the representatives for the clique of Hollywood CEOs announced it was going to meet with AFTRA starting tomorrow and therefore was walking away from the table during negotiations with SAG -- even though the leadership of the big actors union made clear it wanted to continue talking. I'm told that SAG asked for a third extension of the talks, but the AMPTP refused, instead offering to resume talks only as late as May 28, only a month before SAG's contract expires the end of June.


 Unfortunately for the working class, this was predictable as was (1) the inability of the Writers Guild to get big media to talk because big media wanted to lock out all the union members in the beginning and (2) the Directors Guild (directors are middle management) capitulating far ahead of the contract expiration forcing the beleaguered writers to settle.

Like the Battle of New Orleans, SAG's battle is being fought after the war ended earlier this year when the workers lost. AFTRA (the other actor's white meat) has as its goal to expand its prime time influence, so watch the AMPTP throw them a bone to get a settlement, leaving SAG's "militant" (meaning trying to avoid WalMart employee status for its rank and file) leaders hanging because its membership like the rest of us can't afford to miss any payments.

Even in Hollywood, the workers don't understand the lockout or threat of a lockout is simply a management tool to counter the strike.

See also the article in the LA Times.


----------



## bicker1

You'd think that the actors' union would have been more reasonable from the start, knowing that the producers aren't going to give them any better of a deal than they gave the writers.


----------



## phrelin

From Daily Variety:


> The Screen Actors Guild has accepted the invitation of the congloms to head back to negotiations on May 28 or earlier.


This allows one month for SAG to fold on most of its demands or to kill scripted TV for the fall TV season.:eek2:


----------



## phrelin

From Variety:


> In a recent SAG website video posting, national exec director Doug Allen took issue with the congloms' proposal that they be allowed to be distribute such clips online -- with payment but without consent required -- and stressed that actors have had the right of refusal in traditional media for 50 years. He called it "one of the real boulders in the road" that the two sides need to traverse in order to reach a deal.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

Seems like more time _outdoors_ this fall


----------



## phrelin

From Variety:


> With SAG anxiously waiting in the wings, AFTRA and the majors are believed to be near a tentative deal on the union's primetime contract.
> 
> ...In agreeing to negotiate over the Memorial Day holiday weekend, both AFTRA and the AMPTP had started sending strong signals that they were closing in on a deal. Monday's session marked the eighth consecutive day of bargaining over the contract, which covers a handful of primetime shows including "Curb Your Enthusiasm," "Reaper," "Rules of Engagement" and "'Til Death."
> 
> In a message to members, AFTRA president Roberta Reardon indicated Sunday that the two sides were making progress. She singled out the issue of actor consent for online clip use as the toughest hurdle but noted both sides were seeking a "creative solution."


If AFTRA signs, the militant SAG leadership is going to be under tremendous pressure from their members to reach a deal.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

> One down, a whopper to go.
> 
> The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists has OK'd a tentative deal with Hollywood studios on a new three-year contract, a first step in avoiding an industrywide actors' strike this summer.


More here:
http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b139501_lets_make_deal_studios_aftra_shake_on_it.html


----------



## phrelin

We're almost there. The Hollywood Reporter's article reminded in its last paragraph that 44,000 AFTRA members are also SAG members. I think we'll have a full fall season.


----------



## phrelin

Two followup articles here and here. Quote from the latter:


> "I think any opportunity for us to keep this town working is a good thing," said Melissa Gilbert, whose tenure as SAG's top elected officer included an unsuccessful push for a SAG-AFTRA merger. "I will be anxious to see how SAG handles it going forward. They were pretty quick to shoot down the DGA deal, (so) it will be interesting to see what happens now that there's an AFTRA agreement."


----------



## phrelin

From The Hollywood Reporter:


> The tentative AFTRA contract, set for review by the union's national board June 6-7, does not stray far from those already negotiated this year by the WGA, DGA and AFTRA in its Network Code. Left by the wayside, as with the other unions, are attempts to get increases in DVD residuals.
> 
> AFTRA did bargain an increase in wages for traditional media, more contributions by employers to the union's health and pension plan and preservation and coverage of low-budget programs. Much of the contract focused on the ever-changing Internet landscape and includes a "sunset provision" allowing both sides to revisit new-media issues within the three-year agreement.


----------



## phrelin

*Clock's ticking on SAG negotiations*


----------



## phrelin

From MediaPost:


> A report released Tuesday by Wachovia Capital Markets cited multiple reasons why a strike by the Screen Actors Guild starting in July is "unlikely" and "improbable."
> 
> ...As far as broadcast prime time, Ryvicker said production has accelerated to complete as many episodes as possible by July 1.


I guess the capital market analysts keep an eye on this stuff.


----------



## phrelin

SAG militants aren't giving up without a fight. From The Hollywood Reporter:


> SAG will hold a special session of its executive committee Friday, at which president Alan Rosenberg and national executive director Doug Allen will seek to persuade dual card-holders to oppose ratification of the primetime TV deal recently agreed to by AFTRA and the studios and networks.


----------



## Doug Brott

Hmmm .. After 100 days out of work already .. one union making arrangements .. Are the actors ready to go breadless again? .. Maybe the big dogs, but what about the little guys. I know I'd have trouble giving up 3 months of wages right now.


----------



## Jtaylor1

I don't care about reality shows. We may even see reruns of The Price is Right and repeats of Adult Swim shows this fall until a negotiation has been reached.


----------



## phrelin

From The Hollywood Reporter:


> AFTRA's national committee on Friday "overwhelmingly" voted in favor of the tentative primetime/TV agreement reached with the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers last month. The contract now goes to its 70,000 members for ratification.
> 
> Earlier in the day, SAG leaders voted to try to torpedo that ratification vote, with its national executive board agreeing by a narrow margin to spend an initial $75,000 on a campaign to encourage dual card members to vote down the tentative AFTRA deal.
> 
> The SAG vote was taken during an in-person and video conference meeting with SAG's national executive board. One source put the vote at 13 in favor, 10 opposed.
> 
> SAG and AFTRA share 44,000 members, and SAG is looking to those members to vote against the AFTRA contract. Results are expected to be announced on or about July 7.


 The problem here is that the SAG contract expires June 30 but no strike vote has been set. It's going to be weird if SAG members work without a contract. I'm not sure what the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers will do in that case.


----------



## phrelin

Another Strike in Hollywood? is the headline in a Time article dated today.

In an article yesterday Variety writers noted:


> With negligible progress at the Screen Actors Guild negotiations, the majors are moving toward making the guild a last, best and final offer.
> 
> The "final offer" move -- a tactic never used during the WGA strike -- could come as early as next week, unless SAG changes course and backs away from an array of demands that are nonstarters for the companies, including an increase in DVD residuals and sweeter terms for new-media residuals than those achieved earlier this year by the DGA, WGA and AFTRA.
> 
> Talks, which hit their 34th day on Thursday, are said to have been highly unproductive during the past few weeks, with the exasperation level rising for both sides. Negotiations are set to resume today.


 The Reuters headline yesterday was TV networks brace for potential actors strike. While The Hollywood Reporter reported Wednesday:


> SAG members answering the phone Wednesday might have heard a familiar voice on the other end: Sandra Oh.
> 
> The "Grey's Anatomy" star and guild member recorded a so-called "robo" message for the union urging dual SAG and AFTRA members to vote down the tentative AFTRA primetime TV contract. Calls were placed to members throughout Wednesday afternoon, and similar messages are expected to be placed during the next week.


It's unclear what the militant SAG leadership is planning. If the the AMPTP makes a "final" offer next week that doesn't budge on DVD sales residuals and payment for work created for the Internet, it is highly likely the contract will expire. SAG will not have to strike for new movie and tV work to come to a halt at that point, but production of movies and TV series already filiming would likely continue. "The Other Actors Union", AFTRA, has completed negotiations and a membership vote on ratification of that contract will be completed on July 8. Supposedly for SAG to complete a strike vote process would take three weeks.

Meanwhile, it's reported that Viacom "grew revenue by at least 18 percent over the past two years with nice profit gains to boot" and the networks keep producing reality shows....


----------



## Stuart Sweet

It sure seems like there's a possibility this could happen, folks. How dumb is that, I'm sorry to be so blunt. After the writers' strike cost everyone so much money and potentially lowered viewership for good. 

Someone needs to just buck up and make a concession or TV as we know it... could be over.


----------



## phrelin

There is a lot of activity out there that says to me that SAG members won't support a strike. From The Hollywood Reporter:


> SAG's San Francisco board sent the guild's president Alan Rosenberg and chief negotiator Doug Allen a message urging solidarity and asked that the campaign against AFTRA and its tentative primetime/TV deal with the majors end.


 Last week Media Post's TV Watch noted as follows:


> To make matters worse, TV marketers will be blanked again by TV critics if the SAG decides to walk come July 1. If a strike occurs, the Television Critics Association will abandon its mid-July press tour event.
> 
> All that means the nation's TV critics might be left with little to write about for the upcoming season.
> 
> Then again, because of the writers' strike, networks were already scaling back new shows for a fall season launch. Now some executives are talking about delaying the traditional fall season start altogether.
> 
> Is there a trend forming here?


 You're right that it would result in a radical change in attitude from viewers and advertisers both. That is the entire customer base for the business. If your customers find something else to spend their time and money on, you really don't have a viable business. Workers including writers and actors wouldn't do to well either. Not quite sure what good it would do to get double the residuals on something never marketed.:nono:


----------



## Sirshagg

:nono2: :nono: :nono2: :nono:


----------



## Doug Brott

:bang


----------



## phrelin

According to The Hollywood Reporter the matter has become a verbal battle between those actors who would remain millionaires if they never worked another day:


> The battle of dueling A-listers heated up Tuesday as SAG enlisted 67 actors -- including Jack Nicholson, Ben Stiller and Martin Sheen -- to back its campaign against the ratification of AFTRA's tentative pact with the studios and networks.
> 
> The move comes just days after Tom Hanks, Kevin Spacey and more than 100 other guild members went on record in support of AFTRA's contract and urged a "yes" vote on its ratification.


----------



## Doug Brott

Oh nice .. a Turf war between two guilds. I'm sensing the loser in this battle is going to be SAG. As I noted earlier, I just don't think the bulk of the actors are ready to lose another 3 months wages. I know I wouldn't be in this economy.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I'm sensing the loser in this battle is going to be the television viewer.


----------



## tcusta00

Stuart Sweet said:


> I'm sensing the loser in this battle is going to be the television viewer.


Yup, and all the actors who make normal wages and will be waiting tables at the restaurants the Stillers and Sheens of the world will still be eating at, regardless.


----------



## phrelin

From The Hollywood Reporter:


> SAG's national executive committee has approved a measure granting its negotiators the authority to seek an extension of the contract. Although not a requirement, an extension seems to be a near certainty, because no substantive bargaining is likely to take place until the results of AFTRA's contract ratification vote are known July 8.


IMHO they blinked because there is no other choice since the contract expires June 30.. It would take three weeks to conduct a strike vote and they probably wouldn't get the authorization from their members anyway. Also IMHO AFTRA members will approve their contract on July 8. That will leave the SAG militants with nowhere to go. One has to admire the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers. The forced they Screen Writers Guild into a strike which had the same effect as a lockout on directors, actors, etc. Then they negotiated a deal with middle management - the Director's Guild. The Writers gave up and accepted that deal. So did AFTRA. The SAG militants have virtually no chance against the conglomerates.


----------



## Sirshagg

I forget, am I supposed to be rooting for the Billionaires or the Millionaires?


----------



## Drew2k

I'm rooting for the strike to end, and this looks like it could be the first sign that it will end!


----------



## phrelin

Clooney, trying to find middle ground, sent a letter. He's trying to find middle ground:


> Work stoppage will do a great deal of harm to those actors ... agencies will close ... TV pilots won't get made ... more reality shows ... we all know the scenario. But that doesn't mean just roll over and give the producers what they want ... it means diligence.
> 
> The producers say that there's no money in new media right now. There's some truth in that ... for this moment. It was also true for cable, VHS and DVD ... all of which became very profitable for the studios ... and the actors were out in the cold. With new media, we have our foot in the door, but who's to say a year from now, if it becomes profitable, that the same thing won't happen again ... actors out in the cold. So here are a couple of ways that the quarterbacks can protect the linemen:....


----------



## Paul Secic

n3ntj said:


> Good, let 'em strike.


I agree!


----------



## Drew2k

Paul Secic said:


> I agree!


I have to assume you don't watch scripted TV and wouldn't mind hours and hours of reality series like Celebrity Family Feud, Price is Right, Wipeout, Password, etc., otherwise I have to question why you would encourage prolonged disputes that would almost assuredly delay the fall season ...


----------



## phrelin

Drew2k said:


> I have to assume you don't watch scripted TV and wouldn't mind hours and hours of reality series like Celebrity Family Feud, Price is Right, Wipeout, Password, etc., otherwise I have to question why you would encourage prolonged disputes that would almost assuredly delay the fall season ...


Agree. The worst part is that we may never see much scripted tv again if SAG were to go on strike. Note the title of my blog below. It reflects my greatest fears - nothing but "reality" TV.:eek2:


----------



## Mark Holtz

Drew2k said:


> I have to assume you don't watch scripted TV and wouldn't mind hours and hours of reality series like Celebrity Family Feud, Price is Right, Wipeout, Password, etc., otherwise I have to question why you would encourage prolonged disputes that would almost assuredly delay the fall season ...


Because we need a shakeup in the television industry.


----------



## bicker1

There perhaps does need to be a shake-up, but it may be quite different from the one you're aiming for. It's a bit like Midwest airlines, right now. Racing towards bankruptcy, and the only way they're going to avoid oblivion is for everyone who's had a major stake in things (i.e., well-paid pilots) stepping back into a much more subordinate role (getting paid like hourly workers, instead of superstars). People try their whole lives to break into show-business, which reveals just how rewarding it is. What stability and prosperity for the industry, itself, may require is for show-business to just become another industry, and therefore no longer the kind of industry people are so incredibly attracted to work in. That probably won't result in the most creative industry, though it works well enough for some. Indeed, every industry has its (comparatively few) creative contributors at the top, keeping the industry vital and progressive: How many is enough?

Given how regularly and routinely many Americans are "hurt" by downsizing, off-shoring, cost-reduction, etc., it isn't to be unexpected in this industry, as well.


----------



## fredandbetty

Drew2k said:


> I have to assume you don't watch scripted TV and wouldn't mind hours and hours of reality series like Celebrity Family Feud, Price is Right, Wipeout, Password, etc., otherwise I have to question why you would encourage prolonged disputes that would almost assuredly delay the fall season ...


Don't forget I Survived a Japanese Game Show, Celebrity Circus ( or something like that), etc...

And the struggling actors that just got a big break and signed to a major show would most likely be the losers, along with all of the support prople that we never see behind the scenes ( key grip, catering, transportation) will once again be hurt.... :nono2:


----------



## phrelin

As reported by Deadline Hollywood Daily:


> Los Angeles, June 29, 2008 - Screen Actors Guild released the following statement from SAG National President Alan Rosenberg: "We have taken no steps to initiate a strike authorization vote by the members of Screen Actors Guild. Any talk about a strike or a management lockout at this point is simply a distraction. The Screen Actors Guild national negotiating committee is coming to the bargaining table every day in good faith to negotiate a fair contract for actors."


From The Hollywood Reporter:


> Barring any 11th-hour surprises, the guild and the studios will have several options once the deadline passes. They could negotiate a contract extension, which could be by day, week or month, and keep talking; the studios could lock out the actors; or SAG could seek a strike-authorization vote from its membership, which will be at least a two-week process as the negotiating committee must vote on whether to bring a strike.
> 
> Most industry insiders believe that nothing of substance will come of SAG's talks with the studios until July 8, when the result of the AFTRA membership's ratification vote on its newly brokered primetime TV contract is announced. SAG and the AMPTP have been unable to ink a deal in the 41 days they have been negotiating and have been pointing the finger at each other for the sluggish process.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Not exactly a win, but I guess like the actors, we'll take it day by day.


----------



## Doug Brott

No, but perhaps someone knocked on Rosenberg's head and said "Hello!? McFly!?"


----------



## Sirshagg

Doug Brott said:


> "Hello!? McFly!?"


:lol:


----------



## phrelin

See here, here and here.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Well, I guess it's started then. What was that flushing sound I heard? Oh yeah, my hopes for a decent fall TV season.


----------



## say-what

wonderful....


----------



## Sirshagg

say-what said:


> wonderful....


+1


----------



## bearcat250

n3ntj said:


> Good, let 'em strike.


My thoughts exactly!!! Let em go.


----------



## LarryFlowers

Some News on the SAG Situation... paraphrasing from Variety:

1. SAG does not have the bedrock of support among its members to call for a work stoppage.
2. SAG's tactical decision to hinge its next move on the results of the ratification vote for AFTRA's contract, which SAG has blasted as woefully insufficient, has convinced many in the biz that SAG has backed itself into a corner.
3. The sentiment is that people who are working don't want to go out. If there hadn't been a writers strike, there might be more support for (a SAG strike)," said a veteran talent rep who specializes in TV thesps. "Right now, there's too many people who are just desperate to get something going."
4. In TV, however, Warner Bros. TV, 20th Century Fox TV, ABC Studios and others still recovering from the WGA strike-induced disruptions to the traditional series and pilot production cycle are sticking with plans to power through the summer, betting that there won't be a walkout.
5.SAG has yet to take a strike authorization vote, a process that would take at least two weeks to complete and require 75% approval of those voting.

You never know how these things will turn out, but TV executives know that a failure to produce a fall season will lead to a complete disaster after the WGA strike. They simply can't have it. They are not even thinking about the strike in their plans.

You can read the entire article at http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117988386.html?categoryid=13&cs=1


----------



## Doug Brott

Still posturing .. We won't know anything until after July 8th at which time I fully expect Rosenberg to sit down ..


----------



## phrelin

Doug Brott said:


> Still posturing .. We won't know anything until after July 8th at which time I fully expect Rosenberg to sit down ..


I agree, although it might not be Rosenberg. At that point, the media conglomerates will have beaten the "militants" in the Writers Guild and the Screen Actors Guild. Then they can choose between being checkers at WalMart or actors and writers.:nono2:


----------



## phrelin

In SAG painted into a corner The Hollywood Reporter says:


> If, however, it is "last, best and final" and SAG rejects it, the producers legally can declare an impasse and do one of two things: Impose the terms unilaterally, which Broadway producers did with stagehands in November, galvanizing an already solid union and precipitating a 19-day strike; or lock out the actors, a move that one source said was a distinct possibility, though perhaps not for a few more weeks.
> 
> "I'd say they will lock (the guild) out within a week or two from impasse," said another source, who has a long history with Hollywood labor negotiations on the union side. "Impasse will occur the moment SAG rejects the AMPTP's last, best and final offer."


While there has been a reduction in movie production, apparently a big push is on to finish shooting the new TV season. Variety says:


> ...The biz is not gripped by the same level of angst experienced at the comparable moment during the Writers Guild of America's negotiations with the majors....


----------



## Doug Brott

phrelin said:


> While there has been a reduction in movie production, apparently a big push is on to finish shooting the new TV season. Variety says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The biz is not gripped by the same level of angst experienced at the comparable moment during the Writers Guild of America's negotiations with the majors....
Click to expand...

Not entirely surprising that the biz is not gripped by the same level of angst. After the "so what?" attitude of most viewers, perhaps everyone is just willing to bite off their nose to spite their face. Perhaps everyone should just take a smaller bite now with shorter terms and come back to the table when the overall economy looks better. There are way too many external forces at play for the out-of-work to have more power than those-with-money.


----------



## phrelin

From The Hollywood Reporter:


> Since it announced its tentative deal with the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers, AFTRA has been engaged in a battle with rival performers union SAG, which is urging shared members to vote the contract down.
> 
> Most industry watchers believe AFTRA's contract will pass, though it's uncertain by what margin. Should the AFTRA pact be ratified, SAG would be the only major guild left without a pact -- the DGA and WGA signed off on deals earlier this year, the latter coming after a 100-day strike -- and would see its negotiating leverage significantly reduced.
> 
> "If this passes, it will undermine the ability of the Screen Actors Guild to negotiate a decent contract. It will be a civil war," one dual cardholder member said.
> 
> SAG is the larger of the two unions. AFTRA's membership is at 70,000 and is comprised of a variety of talent such as actors, broadcasters, radio announcers, sound recorders and dancers. The two unions share 44,000 members who are actors.


Also from The Hollywood Reporter:


> AFTRA isn't taking any chances with the ratification of its primetime/TV contract Tuesday.
> 
> The performers union has recruited longtime industry go-to firm Integrity Voting Systems to oversee the results of the vote on whether to pass the recently brokered contract with the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers.
> 
> IVS has been used by several guilds, including SAG, for various ballots, including the annual SAG Awards and president Alan Rosenberg's election in 2005 as well as the joint primetime/TV contract three years ago.


----------



## Drew2k

> AFTRA's membership is at 70,000 and is comprised of a variety of talent such as actors, broadcasters, radio announcers, sound recorders and dancers. The two unions share 44,000 members who are actors.


Not once in any article on the negotiations have I seen a count of the number of members in SAG. You'd think that would be relevant to establish how many voting members SAG needs to support their position, but all the articles ever mention is how many members AFTRA has and how many actors are dual card-holders ...


----------



## phrelin

Drew2k said:


> Not once in any article on the negotiations have I seen a count of the number of members in SAG. You'd think that would be relevant to establish how many voting members SAG needs to support their position, but all the articles ever mention is how many members AFTRA has and how many actors are dual card-holders ...


SAG's Web Site says "nearly 120,000" while Wikipedia says "over 120,000" so probably "about 120,000" is a usable description.

So about 60% of AFTRA's membership are SAG members and about 35% of SAG's membership are AFTRA members.

To me, it would seem that a "no" vote of 20,000 or less would be the kiss of death for SAG's militants since that would represent less than half of the dual cardholders.

A "no" vote of 30,000 or more would be spun as widespread support for SAG's position as that would appear to indicate the possibility of a succesful strike vote.

Anything in between would leave SAG's militant leadership hanging in the wind. So it will probably be about 25,000 "no" votes.


----------



## phrelin

One of the critical factors in this situation are the personalities of the two leaders. Finding any information on Roberta Reardon, the AFTRA President, is difficult. The most biographical information I could find is:


> Roberta Reardon has been tapped to lead the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists as the organization's national president.
> 
> AFTRA's board of directors unanimously elected Reardon, promoting her position as National Second Vice President in order to complete the term of John Connolly, who resigned as president in March to become national executive director of Actors Equity.
> 
> In a statement outlining her vision for AFTRA, Reardon said, "AFTRA has a history of managing change. From radio to television, from broadcast to cable, from vinyl to downloads, from kinescope to video tape-and now to iPods, vPods, webisodes, and cell phones. The pace of change in technology is dizzying. AFTRA´s mission is to be responsive to those changes. The key is to ensure that professional performers have a foot in the door in the new modes of production. Our contracts will grow as those businesses grow."
> 
> Reardon has served two terms as AFTRA New York President from June 2003 to the present. She began her career performing in daytime dramas-and has since appeared in commercials, as well as TV voiceover work, radio commercials, industrial films, and narration. She has performed many diverse roles in New York and regional theater as well. She has taught on the faculty of The School for Film and Television and is a guest lecturer at Wagner College.


Alan Rosenberg, SAG's President is much less of a mystery. He's had years of significant roles in TV and movies. He's been a political militant all is life. During the 'radical' 60s, Alan became a member of the Black Panthers and was an active protestor of the Vietnam War. He's from a show business family and is married to Marg Helgenberger.

His "personal quote" on IMDB is:


> Fair play doesn't pertain in bargaining. What matters there is leverage. Here (pointing to the crowd) is the leverage. Our leverage is that we're the product. We took a bad deal for cable 25 years ago. We took a horrible deal for VHS 20 years ago. We won't be fooled again.


These are clearly two very different leaders with two very different views of their world. Unfortunately, Rosenberg is an anachronism within the current American labor climate in that he _strongly believes_ labor should get a larger piece of the pie than it has over the last three decades and it is worth a major sacrifice to get it. While most SAG members are probably sympathetic to the idea they've been screwed for 30 years, most also are like everyone else - up to their ears in debt and not willing to sacrifice their cars and homes for principles. My guess is that Rosenberg and Helgenberger are not one of those couples whose lifestyle is in serious financial jeopardy because of the writer's strike.

This is a high-profile reflection of America today - two strongly different views of how the economy works or doesn't work, depending on your point of view.


----------



## phrelin

From The Hollywood Reporter:


> The decision by the union to meet with the studio's negotiating arm, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, at 2 p.m. Thursday comes a day after SAG ran ads in the trades with the message "Let's Keep Talking."


----------



## phrelin

Hmmm. Well it was kinda like I thought. 38% of those voting voted No. At best that would be about 28,000 votes (probably not, because like the rest of us not everyone votes). So its really not enough to be a moral victory for SAG militants even if they claim it was because it indicates they couldn't get the 75% they need for a strike vote. On the other hand, its not a crushing defeat either.

But both sides spoke, nonetheless. See articles here and here.


----------



## phrelin

From The Hollywood Reporter:


> The meeting at the Sherman Oaks headquarters of the AMPTP, at which SAG president Michael Rosenberg and other union officials delivered their formal response to the AMPTP's "final offer," went into its third hour. The studios team went into a caucus after hearing the SAG presentation, but neither side issued any indication of how the talks were progressing.


----------



## phrelin

Here's an angle I never thought about. Actors get paid for commercials and their contract is up this fall. From Ad Age:


> If you were hoping the bitter acrimony that has splintered Hollywood's actors unions, SAG and AFTRA, might be resolved in time to avoid similar brinksmanship over the commercials contract that expires this fall, think again.


 Gee, do you suppose they'll not have commercials to run if they can't get a contract?:lol:


----------



## phrelin

Two different takes: Variety, The Hollywood Reporter.

And of course Schwarzenegger speaks on SAG.


----------



## phrelin

Spin should become an Olympic sport. While Variety is reporting:


> It is no secret that we are in a deteriorating economy," Carol Lombardini, exec VP of the AMPTP said. "Our companies are not immune from the effects of this economic slowdown. It is very possible that, as a result of changing economic conditions, we will have to reevaluate the offer we have on the table."


Media Daily News reported:


> On the surface, it appears NBC got through the writers strike relatively unscathed. Earnings results in the second quarter are on par with a year ago.


And while Variety reported in the same article:


> "The risks are even greater in television," Lombardini added. "Continued uncertainty over contract status further jeopardizes scripted programming."


in another article it reported:


> With eight pilots already in the works this summer, Fox Entertainment prexy Kevin Reilly told reporters Monday that the net plans to screen those projects in December -- and make a flurry of early series orders before the holidays.


In the meantime The Hollywood Reporter provided an analysis of possible legal maneuvers which would allow continued production of TV episodes and movies:


> From the folks who brought you the de facto strike comes Hollywood's latest summer disaster saga: the de facto impasse.
> 
> Talks between Hollywood actors and the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers have become so fractured that it appears they are in the state of a de facto impasse, with SAG saying they're still bargaining and the studios saying talks have ended.
> 
> Still, no official declaration of an impasse has been made by the AMPTP, though its executive vp business and legal affairs, Carol Lombardini, appeared to lay the groundwork for such an action at Thursday's meeting between the studios and SAG.
> 
> In transcripts released by the AMPTP on Friday, Lombardini told SAG's negotiating committee, "It is important to be clear: What we gave you on June 30 was our final offer. It doesn't get any better than that. That is the best deal you are going to achieve from us."
> 
> SAG, however, has pointed out that several "final offers" by the AMPTP have been made in past negotiations with other guilds and unions, most recently during the WGA negotiations, a charge the AMPTP denies.
> 
> Following Thursday's meeting, SAG president Alan Rosenberg said, "We believe bargaining is continuing."
> 
> A declaration of an impasse -- which would legally enable the studios to implement all or part of its "final offer" -- would benefit the studios, who could, for example, implement the contract without the clauses providing wage and residual increases to the guild.


Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if they implement the full contract saying to the actors - what do you need these SAG guys for?


----------



## phrelin

From The Hollywood Reporter:


> SAG and the studios will meet Wednesday at the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers' headquarters in Sherman Oaks.
> 
> The AMPTP said in a statement Tuesday that SAG has requested a side bar with the studios, involving a "small group of people from each side."
> 
> ...The sidebar meeting comes after SAG's Hollywood board met privately Monday night. According to one SAG member, a lot of "venting" took place at the meeting but no decisions were made.


From Variety on the same announcement:


> SAG's national board is due to meet July 26, and if it agrees to send the deal to members, it would give thesps enough time to ratify the deal by Aug. 15 -- the deadline set by the AMPTP to ratify the pact in order for members to receive about $10 million in pay retroactive to July 1.


----------



## Drew2k

phrelin said:


> From The Hollywood Reporter:
> 
> From Variety on the same announcement:


Get it done!


----------



## phrelin

This could be a serious problem. From Variety:


> In a move that deflates hopes for a deal any time soon, Screen Actors Guild national exec director Doug Allen has blistered the majors' final offer -- despite the congloms' repeated insistence that they won't change the terms.
> 
> The message to members, sent Thursday, focused on SAG's problems with the new-media portions of the deal. In the message titled "It's Not New Media -- It's NOW Media," Allen contended that SAG has to get a better deal than the DGA, WGA and AFTRA.
> 
> "The DGA and WGA represent writers and directors, not actors," he added. "Their resolution of the new-media issues may work for them, but they don't address your specific needs. The DGA and WGA agreed to allow producers to make new-media productions entirely non-union, at the producers' option, for projects below budgets of $15,000 per minute (effectively, almost all new-media productions for the foreseeable future)."
> 
> ..."Some of you may be wondering why we don't just agree to the template established by the other unions," he said. "The template doesn't protect actors, and while we may be the last union to come to the table, we still have the obligation to address the issues that are most important to you. We have had the extra time to effectively assess the impact of rapid technological and marketplace changes, and after careful analysis, we don't believe the template works for SAG members."


I find it hard to believe that the WGA and AFTRA accepted this. The future is in new-media and to go non-union is to go WalMart. I don't see SAG accepting this - a contract settlement requires membership majority approval. But I don't see 75% of the SAG membership voting to strike. The issue is simple:


> For its part, the AMPTP noted that its offer gives SAG jurisdiction over original new-media production, including low-budget programs that employ a single "covered actor".


That sounds like it might be ok, until one contemplates just how many places a media corporation could set up "new media production" studios assuring no "covered actor" is within 200 miles. They wouldn't even have to go offshore.

And then five years from now the more popular "new media" productions could start appearing in NBCU's various channel's schedule much like USA's Monk has appeared on NBC.

Some may not believe that is the direction the conglomerates want to go. People need to be careful. But then I remember Sam Walton's Buy American campaign....


----------



## Doug Brott

WooHoo! .. Now we'll see Johnny Fairplay as the lead investigator on CSI. Oh wait .. He might be a SAG member


----------



## bicker1

The SAG is being greedy. The template the other unions accepted is reasonable. If the production is low budget, and doesn't employ any SAG employees, then let it be non-union. If it is a top-shelf production, then it'll be union. Why is the SAG so afraid of this model? Greed. And silly greed, because they're going after the pennies on the ground. The union is acting like it owns everything. That is the problem. Perhaps there should be competing unions, so that no union gets the mistaken idea that they _own_ anything.

What's worse, it is the leadership being greedy, not the r+f. Despicable.


----------



## phrelin

bicker1 said:


> The SAG is being greedy. The template the other unions accepted is reasonable. If the production is low budget, and doesn't employ any SAG employees, then let it be non-union. If it is a top-shelf production, then it'll be union. Why is the SAG so afraid of this model? Greed. And silly greed, because they're going after the pennies on the ground. The union is acting like it owns everything. That is the problem. Perhaps there should be competing unions, so that no union gets the mistaken idea that they _own_ anything.
> 
> What's worse, it is the leadership being greedy, not the r+f. Despicable.


Well, "$15,000 per minute" for new media is hardly low budget. But as I understand it, the other contracts are for 3 years. We'll begin to know in 3 years how the money is going to shake out.

Greedy? Check the last 12 quarterlies for the conglomerates. Don't look at them in terms of how the performance was rated by Wall Street analysts. Look at total revenue. Then look at the increase values of SAG's demands. Everyone in "the biz" is greedy.

By the way, the competing union is AFTRA and they have settled.


----------



## TBoneit

phrelin said:


> Here's an angle I never thought about. Actors get paid for commercials and their contract is up this fall. From Ad Age: Gee, do you suppose they'll not have commercials to run if they can't get a contract?:lol:


OH joy more computer generated actors in commercials. I suspect that the day is coming when computer generated people will be indistiguishable from real people. Saving money for studios and putting more people out of work.


----------



## bicker1

phrelin said:


> Greedy?


Yeah, greedy. I see folks with an anti-business bias using the term all the time, wrongly, to label whenever a business is fulfilling it fiduciary responsibilities to its owners. It applies much more to this scenario, where actors just want more for themselves, and assert that they deserve it even though market forces don't justify that assertion.



phrelin said:


> By the way, the competing union is AFTRA and they have settled.


Ask the SAG is _they_ consider AFTRA to be a "competing" union. Beyond that, SAG refuses to allow AFTRA to staff projects normally staffed by SAG, so they're not really competitors, but mutual monopolies (another word consistently wrongly used by folks with an anti-business bias).



TBoneit said:


> I suspect that the day is coming when computer generated people will be indistiguishable from real people. Saving money for studios and putting more people out of work.


That would be fine with me. My industry has implemented a number of measures replacing employees with superior productivity and efficiency. Why should show biz be exempt from reality?


----------



## phrelin

From The Hollywood Reporter:


> Three weeks after the expiration of their contract, the Screen Actors Guild and the studios appear to be living on different planets.
> 
> SAG says it's still negotiating; the studios say their final offer is languishing on the table. A weekend get-together of the actors union gave little indication that those worlds are getting any closer.
> 
> ...The AMPTP, however, has rejected this interpretation, saying negotiations ended when the contract expired June 30 and the studios made their final offer. It has said it will not entertain any more bargaining sessions or counterproposals.
> 
> Although film production has slowed, SAG national executive director Doug Allen told about 450 members during a regularly scheduled meeting on Saturday that they were in a de facto lockout, not a de facto strike.


From Variety:


> SAG national exec director Doug Allen and president Alan Rosenberg received enthusiastic support -- including several standing ovations -- at Saturday's membership meeting of the Hollywood Division at the Sportsmen's Lodge. The guild estimated the SRO crowd at 735.
> 
> ...But the tone and tenor of remarks at the Hollywood membership meeting is a probable signal that SAG's Hollywood leaders -- who control the national board -- may be more inclined to let the stalemate stay in place until after board elections, which conclude in mid-September.


The weird thing is that while they report a bit of a slowdown in new movie production, TV shows are going right on as are existing movie production schedules. Great for us scripted TV fans! But it's a really odd labor situation. I'll certainly take all the programming I can get.


----------



## phrelin

From Variety:


> In a direct challenge to Alan Rosenberg for control of the Screen Actors Guild, a dissident faction dubbed Unite for Strength has announced they will challenge the current Hollywood Division leadership with a slate of 31 actors running for seats on the national board.


From The Hollywood Reporter:


> SAG leaders will sit down Saturday with their national board for the first meeting since the actors union's contract with producers expired.
> 
> One board member predicted there will be "fireworks" during the regularly scheduled meeting over the current state of negotiations.


I have a feeling that meeting will make our disputes here over Dish versus Direct seem calm and reasonable.:eek2:


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I am awfully glad I don't have to moderate that discussion...


----------



## Doug Brott

No kidding .. perhaps another California Recall Election.


----------



## Drew2k

George Clooney wrote that letter a while back ... is he involved with the faction trying to put seats on the board? I can see him in a real-life political role ...


----------



## phrelin

The opposition Unite for Strength lineup is shown on their web site here.

The current MembershipFirst Board members are shown on their web site here. Also see The Hollywood Reporter article MembershipFirst unveils candidates for more information.

Looks like its going to be a serious election, but no George Clooney.


----------



## phrelin

From The Hollywood Reporter:


> SAG's famously fragmented national board took a unified stance Saturday, passing a resolution that urges its negotiating committee to focus the stalled contract talks with the Hollywood studios on issues involving new media.
> 
> Jurisdiction and fair compensation for new media is a "core principle" of the guild, according to the resolution, approved by a 68-0 margin. The nature and timing of the board resolution -- establishing new media as a bargaining priority despite the fact that the talks have broken down -- also sends that signal that it is unlikely that the studios' final offer will be brought before SAG's membership anytime soon.


From Variety:


> The panel reiterated SAG's contentions that it can't endorse a deal that allows non-union work in low-budget productions and doesn't guarantee residuals for new-media programming replayed on digital platforms. As expected, SAG leaders didn't discuss taking a strike authorization vote, a difficult move since that would require 75% approval among the guild's 120,000 members.


----------



## phrelin

From The Hollywood Reporter:



> The AMPTP had given SAG until Friday to have its members ratify the studios' final offer made on June 30, when the actors contract expired. If the union did so, the offer would be retroactive to July 1.
> 
> ...The next big date in the saga is Sept. 18. That's when members will either re-elect those who control the majority of the national board -- known as MembershipFirst -- or elect those who are part of the opposing faction, Unite for Strength.
> 
> ...If MembershipFirst is able to retain its control, it could strengthen its position. That could lead to a strike-authorization vote being taken to SAG membership, something leadership has been hesitant to do amid the guild's factional infighting.
> 
> ...If Unite for Strength wins the majority, it might cause the AMPTP to be more open to bargaining again. "If you've reached an impasse with a group that then gets new leadership with different players on the one side, it does change the attitude of the employer to meet with them," the labor attorney said. "They don't have a history of antagonisms. It could very well be constructive."


----------



## phrelin

From The Hollywood Reporter:


> Unfortunately, the newfound harmony comes not on the subject of SAG's long-stalled contract negotiations with Hollywood studios but rather the actors unions' next round of talks with advertising industry groups.


Of course, there isn't an argument over DVD and new media revenue. I don't have any DVD's of ads.:sure:


----------



## phrelin

From The Hollywood Reporter:


> If this past week is any indication of what's to come with the SAG national board elections, get ready for a lot of back-and-forth rhetoric and AFTRA-bashing/defending by the two factions fighting for control.
> 
> SAG mailed out ballots to members Tuesday. An unprecedented 84 candidates are vying for 11 seats on the national board, along with 22 alternates. Votes are due Sept. 18.


After reading the whole article, I think the Presidential Primaries were less confusing.


----------



## phrelin

The actors community isn't holding together on much of anything. From Deadline Hollywood Daily:


> Now AFTRA has officially weighed in on the Interactive Contract and confirmed what SAG Interactive Committee chair Michael Bell told me -- that AFTRA is starting informal negotiations on its own. Wheras in 2005 both AFTRA and SAG bargained the Interactive Contract jointly.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Clearly this show of "solidarity" on the part of the actors is anything but. I understand why there were two unions in the past, but perhaps it might be better if the weaker union simply melted into the stronger one.


----------



## Doug Brott

Stuart Sweet said:


> Clearly this show of "solidarity" on the part of the actors is anything but. I understand why there were two unions in the past, but perhaps it might be better if the weaker union simply melted into the stronger one.


Better for who? Sounds like one group is ready to go to work while the other is just spinning it's wheels.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Precisely. Better for the public who provide the salaries for these people. The union that apparently knows how to do business should absorb the one that simply wants to pontificate.


----------



## Drew2k

Yeah, but doesn't the "do-something" union have lower membership numbers than the "do-nothing" union? I doubt SAG would vote to abolish themselves and be absorbed into AFTRA ... although if a significant number of SAG members voluntarily gave up SAG membership to be only in AFTRA that would send a clear signal to SAG leadership...


----------



## phrelin

From The Hollywood Reporter:


> Who will control SAG and what it will mean for labor contract negotiations is the big question this week as results are tallied in two pivotal elections.
> 
> On Thursday, guild members will learn whether MembershipFirst, which currently controls the Hollywood and national boards, will continue to hold sway -- or whether a new faction called Unite for Strength will unseat the majority on both boards.


----------



## phrelin

In what should be good news for those of us fearing another disruption of scripted programming, according to Variety:


> In the wake of the stunning power shift, the wheels were already turning Thursday evening toward breaking the three-month logjam between SAG and the congloms. Hollywood heavyweights plan to start reaching out immediately to the new elected reps to figure out ways to tweak the congloms' offer enough to close a deal for a new SAG feature-primetime contract.


From The Hollywood Reporter:


> "We offered members a clear choice in this election: end the fighting with AFTRA and instead partner with them to create a stronger union for performers," said Ned Vaughn, a UFS leader who was elected to the Hollywood board. "The results in this unusually high turnout election leave no doubt that is what the members want. We look forward to working with all of our colleagues on the board to move SAG in this new direction."


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Phrelin, I really appreciate all your work in keeping everyone informed on this.


----------



## phrelin

It appears that SAG President Rosenberg and Executive Director Allen aren't going to bend, Board election notwithstanding, according to Variety:


> At a town hall meeting Tuesday night, national exec director Doug Allen and president Alan Rosenberg showed no softening of key positions on the need for jurisdiction and residuals in new media along with retaining force majeure protections. An estimated 150 members attended the event at the WGA Theater - far less than the crowds of more than 500 at previous town hall meetings.


This might not be such a good idea. In an earlier Variety article these facts came to light:


> As the Screen Actors Guild heads into the third month of its contract stalemate with the majors, there's mounting evidence that the uncertainty about SAG's future is helping rival union AFTRA make inroads in primetime.
> 
> Insiders at TV's major studios say that in situations where the studio has the option to pick between the thesp unions, there has been a stronger inclination to do broadcast network pilots and series under an American Federation of Television and Radio Artists contract rather than with SAG. And there's little wonder why: With the threat of a SAG strike still hanging over the biz, going with AFTRA is like taking out a strikeproof insurance policy.
> 
> SAG has exclusive jurisdiction over network primetime skeins shot on film; SAG and AFTRA have shared jurisdiction over pilots and series shot on video. With more and more series shot on digital vid, however, AFTRA has had more opportunities in the past few years to land network primetime series, particularly dramas.


In my opinion, SAG should worry about this as digital video seems likely to become the preferred medium in five years even without this economic incentive for the studios.


----------



## phrelin

From The Hollywood Reporter:


> In an attempt to extend an olive branch to the studios, SAG's leaders sent a letter Monday to the AMPTP's Nick Counter, Fox president Peter Chernin and Disney president Bob Iger, posing the question "What do you say: When can our committees meet face-to-face?"


----------



## phrelin

From The Hollywood Reporter:


> NEW YORK -- SAG is set to move a step closer to striking.
> 
> The guild's negotiating committee is expected to approve a measure Wednesday asking for the rank and file's approval for a work stoppage, and the measure probably will pass, according to SAG sources with knowledge of the meeting.


From Variety:


> In a statement Tuesday, SAG national exec director Doug Allen said guild leaders were "disappointed" at being rebuffed by the majors after Rosenberg and Allen urged a resumption of talks in an open letter published in Tuesday's edition of Daily Variety.


----------



## phrelin

From The Hollywood Reporter:


> After months of seeing its talks with the AMPTP go nowhere, SAG's negotiating committee Wednesday urged its national board to take a strike authorization vote of its membership.
> 
> The national board, newly constituted in the wake of recent elections, will meet Oct. 18.
> 
> "A strike authorization vote of the membership is necessary to overcome the employers' intransigence," the resolution said. It also called for the national board to adopt a campaign advocating a "yes" vote, giving the bargaining team the authority to call a strike when the board "deems it necessary and unavoidable to do so."
> 
> A "yes" vote would be required by 75% of the membership to authorize a strike.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

My simple prediction: The day the actors go on strike will be remembered as the day broadcast television died in this country. It's already limping along.


----------



## phrelin

Stuart Sweet said:


> My simple prediction: The day the actors go on strike will be remembered as the day broadcast television died in this country. It's already limping along.


 I'm not even sure the strike vote will get through the newly constituted SAG Board, much less to the members. And getting a 75% vote out of the members is highly unlikely. IMHO it's a last gasp attempt by the militants to ignore the fact that they screwed up back when the writers went out and they didn't call for a solidarity strike which was the only time they had a chance to get more. But who knows?


----------



## Sirshagg

I'd be really surprised to see 75% vote for a strike.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I hope you are right, for the sake of the local broadcast affiliates.


----------



## bicker1

But wouldn't a defeat of the strike vote effectively destroy the union?


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I'm not so certain that would be a bad thing ... AFTRA is still there and still strong.


----------



## phrelin

bicker1 said:


> But wouldn't a defeat of the strike vote effectively destroy the union?


Not really. The members already "threw the bums out" in the recent Board election. If the new Board replaced key members of the negotiating committee and notified AMPTP they would take the last, best offer including the original retro provision (maybe even with some minor contract wording changes) my guess it would all be love, peace and quiet.

If the new Board called for the vote with a recommendation against and indeed it loses, they might still get that offer, though retro might get some resistance.

If the new Board called for the vote with a recommendation for a strike and loses, forget the retro.

Although I don't see this happening, if the new Board called for the vote and 75% of the membership approved a strike, AMPTP will attempt within the limits of the law to cease dealing with SAG and offer AFTRA a full blown "all productions" contract opportunity. Not sure what AFTRA would do with that. The problem is the Hollywood actors might not be happy with AFTRA's membership benefits.

The one thing not discussed here is that the new SAG Board could ignore AMPTP and reopen merger talks with AFTRA, which would create a whole new dynamic.


----------



## phrelin

With News Corp chief operating officer Peter Chernin warning SAG against a strike, Saturday the new SAG Board members will take up the negotiating committee's recommendation to call a strike vote. Chernin's remarks Thursday at a TV Week media conference were included in stories in Variety and TV Week.


----------



## phrelin

From Variety:


> Leaders of the Screen Actors Guild have recessed for the night without deciding on whether to ask members for a strike authorization.
> 
> SAG's national board will re-convene at 8 a.m. Sunday in Los Angeles.
> 
> The guild released no other details about the meeting.


----------



## phrelin

From the LA Times:


> The Screen Actors Guild board of directors on Sunday rejected calls to seek an immediate strike authorization from members, and instead called for bringing in a federal mediator to resolve the logjam in contract talks with studios.


Didn't see that one coming.

Longer story now in Variety.


----------



## bicker1

Rational logic. Yes. Who would have thought? Surely a big surprise.


----------



## phrelin

This is clever politics. The Negotiating Committee dominated by the militant MembershipFirst members threw the ball into the lap of the new moderate Unite for Strength Board majority by asking the Board to call for the strike vote, which the negotiating committee could have done on its own. The newly constituted Board simply used that rational logic passing the big ball with "failure" written on it back but with the proviso "work with a mediator before doing something so drastic as calling for a strike vote."

The Hollywood Reporter explained:


> The process of involving a mediator, which would require SAG's petitioning the federal government and getting a formal response from the AMPTP, will likely take weeks. In the resolution passed Sunday, SAG's board said that the bargaining committee would consider sending a strike authorization vote to the membership only after mediation failed.


----------



## phrelin

Reported last night in The Hollywood Reporter:


> The Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service formally contacted the AMPTP at the request of SAG to sit down and try to hash out the unsettled TV/theatrical contract.
> 
> A source close to the producers said federal mediator Juan Carlos Gonzalez -- the very same one chosen last year to mediate talks between the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers and WGA prior to the writers strike -- contacted the studios negotiating arm Monday afternoon.


Gee, he did so well with the writers that I just can't imagine what could go wrong.


----------



## phrelin

From Variety:


> The Screen Actors Guild and the majors are taking baby steps toward resuming their long-stalled formal negotiations over the feature-primetime contract.
> 
> However, there's widespread skepticism that the diplomatic mission led by federal mediator Juan Carlos Gonzalez will lead to a settlement, even if Gonzalez can persuade both sides to return to bargaining table. Neither side has signaled any softening of its bargaining stance.
> 
> Gonzalez met Friday with SAG prexy Alan Rosenberg, national exec director Doug Allen and deputy national exec director for contracts Ray Rodriguez at SAG headquarters in Hollywood. He is skedded to meet with Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers reps on Thursday.
> 
> SAG issued a bare-bones announcement saying the group discussed the guild's request for mediation and the possibilities regarding resumption of negotiations.
> 
> The AMPTP had no response. The two sides remain far apart in many areas, particularly new media. They last met officially July 16.


----------



## phrelin

:new_sleep From Variety:


> Following a month of shuttle diplomacy by a federal mediator, SAG and the majors will meet Thursday for the first time in four months about their contract stalemate.
> 
> The two sides agreed Friday to the confab, set up by mediator Juan Carlos Gonzalez and held at the Sherman Oaks HQ of the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers.
> 
> Neither side issued any official comment. Both sides have made minimal disclosure about the process since the Screen Actors Guild requested mediation on Oct. 19. Gonzalez has met twice with both sides in an effort to resume talks.
> 
> Thursday's meeting may not lead to resumption of formal contract negotiations. The AMPTP's insisted repeatedly that it's done negotiating and will not revise its final offer, issued on June 30 as SAG's contract expired.
> 
> The AMPTP's scheduled to hold negotiating sessions today through Wednesday with the Intl. Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees over the West Coast contract covering 18 locals. That pact, which covers 25,000 below-the-line workers, expires in August.


It's curious how this past season got made without a contract and a whole group of January 2009 premiering shows got made, all without a contract. If the summer shows start shooting in January, SAG may become irrelevant. Or maybe they already are?

More info in The Hollywood Reporter.


----------



## phrelin

Watch out viewers. Last week, I thought there was no chance for a SAG strike.

And indeed, Variety and The Hollywood Reporter both update their readers that SAG and AMPTP are talking. However....

This development mentioned in The Hollywood Reporter article is clearly explained in Variety and it may increase the tension surrounding the SAG/AMPTP talks by creating a "see, you can't trust the conglomerates sympathy" in the Hollywood creative community:


> In a move echoing the bitter disputes surrounding the 100-day WGA strike, the Writers Guild of America West has accused the conglomerates of failing to comply with the guild's 8-month-old contract.
> 
> The move elicited a sharp denial by the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers, which asserted that the WGA has misinterpreted the terms of the deal that ended the strike by wrongly asserting that it covers projects prior to start of the agreement.
> 
> The WGA announced Wednesday that it has filed for arbitration over alleged nonpayment of new-media residuals for programs sold as electronic downloads, also known as electronic sell-through (EST). WGA West board member John Bowman, who headed the guild's negotiating committee, said the contract with the companies on electronic sell-through covers feature films produced after July 1, 1971, and TV programs produced after 1977.
> 
> "The companies have reneged on this agreement and are taking the position that only programs produced after Feb. 13, 2008, are covered by the new provision," he added. "This may be their deal with the DGA, but that was never our agreement. Every proposal we made during negotiations made clear our position that library product was covered, and the AMPTP never objected to that position. The guild will not allow this to stand."
> 
> The AMPTP shot back that the WGA is mistaken about how the new-media residuals apply.


The creative types in Hollywood don't lack the imagination to see a "corporate giant anti-worker crush-labor conspiracy" in the economic melt down. The dots may start getting connected between SAG and WGA in Hollywood, and what's happening to the UAW in Detroit. Think "Norma Rae", "Silkwood", and "Erin Brockovich". After all, there's not much difference between *G*_E_, *G*_M_, and _AI_*G*. Could "The Grapes of Wrath" be far behind?


----------



## phrelin

Don't say I didn't warn you yesterday, from the Associated Press:


> The Screen Actors Guild said Saturday it will ask its members to authorize a strike after its first contract talks in four months with Hollywood studios failed despite the help of a federal mediator.


More in a few minutes.


----------



## phrelin

The members of the Writers Guild of America (WGA) thought they had a fair deal with the conglomerates last spring. AMPTP (the conglomerate's organization) has been beating drum against the Screen Actors Guild (SGA) failure to settle by pointing to all the other settlements, mostly though with WGA.

This week WGA filed a mediation request because apparently their bargaining folks were just not quite as clever as AMPTP's. You see, according to AMPTP if you buy _*on DVD*_ a movie released last January, the writers would get residuals under the new contract. If you buy the same movie as a download, the new contract doesn't apply.

What it means is that if you're a successful screen writer, as movie sales shift to downloads your income stream from your work will get smaller and smaller. AMPTP apparently thinks the actors will accept this. Do you think SAG members would strike over this?

Here's what's going to happen, from The Hollywood Reporter:


> "As previously authorized by the national board of directors, we will now launch a full-scale education campaign in support of a strike authorization referendum," SAG said. "We will further inform our members about the core, critical issues unique to actors that remain in dispute."
> 
> No timeline was given on when materials would be sent out or a strike vote would be taken.


Like I said in my previous post from a Variety article, today's Hollywood Reporter article discusses what is going to increase the likelihood of success of the strike vote:


> Coming into the mediation session, however, SAG was armed with the WGA's recent arbitration filing against the AMPTP, which claims the studios have yet to pay up on the new media residual platform negotiated in its new contract.
> 
> The missing WGA payments include reuse of work for programs sold as electronic downloads, also known as Electronic Sell-Through, which involves the sale of video content online that allows the purchaser to keep a copy of the program permanently.
> 
> The AMPTP responded to the WGA stating, "The understanding we reached with the WGA was exactly the same as the one we reached with the DGA. The DGA deal calls for the new EST formula to apply only to motion pictures that are initially released in new media after the effective date of the new agreement. The producers are implementing the terms of the agreement we made with WGA, just as we have with the other 310 major labor agreements the AMPTP has made over the past 26 years."


----------



## Steve615

From Variety:
Talks have collapsed between the Screen Actors Guild and AMPTP.
The SAG is seeking strike authorization from its 120,000 members.
More info at the following link.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1110001161.html?categoryid=18&cs=1


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I've officially crossed over to disgusted. 

Apparently SAG is "this close" to striking according to the radio news broadcast this morning. I don't even need to hear the details. 

It is not a matter of whether SAG is being treated fairly. Frankly the movie and TV industries are almost as distressed as the mortgage and automotive ones, and now is the time for SAG to be magnanimous if they want to save the idea of scripted entertainment produced by professionals. 

As a resident of California, I'm keenly aware that entertainment programming is among our most lucrative exports. Frankly it's one of the few things that the world happily buys from us. 

If SAG strikes, it will finish the job the writers started last year and kill the large entertainment producers. Who benefits? SAG members may get their new deal but in the meantime people will have switched from the movie theatre to YouTube for their entertainment. Is that what everyone wants? 

I am not a SAG member but if I were I would propose a parallel vote, that SAG be dissolved in a massive vote of no confidence and that all members migrate to AFTRA or some more sensible entity.

Accuse me if you will of not having a grasp of the fine details. I'll admit I don't. Who cares about the details when my state's economy collapses?


----------



## Herdfan

Stuart Sweet said:


> people will have switched from the movie theatre to YouTube for their entertainment. Is that what everyone wants?
> 
> all members migrate to AFTRA or some more sensible entity.


What effect will this have on TV production? Are many of the TV actors also members of SAG?


----------



## Sirshagg

Stuart Sweet said:


> I've officially crossed over to disgusted.
> 
> Apparently SAG is "this close" to striking according to the radio news broadcast this morning. I don't even need to hear the details.
> 
> It is not a matter of whether SAG is being treated fairly. Frankly the movie and TV industries are almost as distressed as the mortgage and automotive ones, and now is the time for SAG to be magnanimous if they want to save the idea of scripted entertainment produced by professionals.
> 
> As a resident of California, I'm keenly aware that entertainment programming is among our most lucrative exports. Frankly it's one of the few things that the world happily buys from us.
> 
> If SAG strikes, it will finish the job the writers started last year and kill the large entertainment producers. Who benefits? SAG members may get their new deal but in the meantime people will have switched from the movie theatre to YouTube for their entertainment. Is that what everyone wants?
> 
> I am not a SAG member but if I were I would propose a parallel vote, that SAG be dissolved in a massive vote of no confidence and that all members migrate to AFTRA or some more sensible entity.
> 
> Accuse me if you will of not having a grasp of the fine details. I'll admit I don't. Who cares about the details when my state's economy collapses?


Given this economy I can't see 75% of the membership voting to strike.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Herdfan said:


> What effect will this have on TV production? Are many of the TV actors also members of SAG?


Again, I'm not super clear on the details. All I know is that you hear of a lot of other unions making concessions and this one can't seem to do that.


----------



## Lee L

Herdfan, More TV actors are SAG members than AFTRA (I think only a handfull of shows were under AFTRA contracts), so the effect could be pretty huge if they do vote to strike (like idiots).


----------



## phrelin

Stuart Sweet said:


> Again, I'm not super clear on the details. All I know is that you hear of a lot of other unions making concessions and this one can't seem to do that.


In light of the Writers Guild of America requesting arbitration over the fact that the conglomerates aren't sending any money because they say the contract doesn't cover download residuals for pre-2008 releases, I think SAG isn't the problem here. See my posts 151 and 153 above. I'm leaning towards assigning the blame to GE and News Corp.


----------



## drx792

Lee L said:


> Herdfan, More TV actors are SAG members than AFTRA (I think only a handfull of shows were under AFTRA contracts), so the effect could be pretty huge if they do vote to strike (like idiots).


Thats 100% correct.

AFTRA is primarily the union that deals with commercials now.


----------



## bicker1

Does anyone know if Philanthropist is subject to SAG contract? 

Regardless, I expect that if the SAG actually does strike, then we'll either see the ascendancy of AFTRA as the pre-eminent union for up-and-coming actors in this country, and/or more production Canada with all-Canadian casts and crews. And I'll get used to that pretty quickly. It's not that big of a difference.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

phrelin said:


> In light of the Writers Guild of America requesting arbitration over the fact that the conglomerates aren't sending any money because they say the contract doesn't cover download residuals for pre-2008 releases, I think SAG isn't the problem here. See my posts 151 and 153 above. I'm leaning towards assigning the blame to GE and News Corp.


Phrelin, I would never question you. Your insights are always right on target.

I would simply reiterate that I care not one whit who is right, wrong, or at fault. Those are the questions for a healthier day. The tone today needs to be one of cooperation, where both sides agree that the deal they have is the best one possible under today's climate. Let the battle be fought in a healthier economy. There is no such thing as a slippery slope when you're already nearing rock bottom.


----------



## phrelin

Stuart Sweet said:


> Phrelin, I would never question you. Your insights are always right on target.
> 
> I would simply reiterate that I care not one whit who is right, wrong, or at fault. Those are the questions for a healthier day. The tone today needs to be one of cooperation, where both sides agree that the deal they have is the best one possible under today's climate. Let the battle be fought in a healthier economy. There is no such thing as a slippery slope when you're already nearing rock bottom.


That's true. But this not paying writers on pre-2008 download sales is a bit much when you see this kind of 10Q info on GE:


> NBC Universal reported revenues of $12.5 billion in the first nine months of 2008, an increase of $1.7 billion or 15% from the first nine months of 2007


 The WGA was a bit too cooperative, led down the wrong path by the middle management union, the Directors Guild of America.

Now, of course, the actors are in the position of looking like the bad guys to the public.


----------



## phrelin

From KTLA:


> (SAG President) Alan Rosenberg told KTLA Monday morning that union members were optimistic a federal mediator would move the negotiation process with Hollywood studios forward this weekend, but that was not the case.
> 
> Rosenberg claims the Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers will not bend at all.
> 
> "We've made monumental moves in their direction during these negotiations in order to avoid a work stoppage, in order to make a deal and they have not moved one iota in our direction," Rosenberg said.
> 
> On Sunday, the association representing the Hollywood studios owned by eight large entertainment companies criticized SAG of asking for better deals on new media distribution payments than other Hollywood unions got earlier this year.
> 
> The AMPTP sent out a message to its members saying that SAG negotiators continued to "unrealistically... insist on a substantially better deal than all the other major Hollywood guilds and unions have negotiated so far in 2008."
> 
> AMPTP representatives added that SAG seems stunningly "tone-deaf" by provoking a strike at a time when the national economy is already suffering. They said their current offer to SAG was "fair and strong," and that the current economic downturn might actually force them to scale back their offer.
> 
> Rosenberg responded saying, "Somebody's deaf here and it's not us."
> 
> "They expect us to sign on to the deals that WG (WGA) and the DG (DGA) signed on to, but those unions asked no questions about how the new media impacts actors," he added.
> 
> AMPTP represents CBS/Viacom, MGM, NBC/Universal, News Corp./Fox, Paramount, Sony, Walt Disney and Warner Bros., as well as 300 producers who work for the studios and many independent producers in the industry.
> 
> Also on Sunday, the president of the Writers Guild of America blasted the studios for going back on this year's contract deal with the WGA to pay writers Internet royalties, and for suggesting to actors that SAG should accept the same deal.
> 
> He said it was "unconscionable" for the studios to suggest that the royalties issue has been settled to everyone's satisfaction.


It's tough to cooperate when the guys that settled now consider the conglomerates liars who negotiate in bad faith.

It's not surprising. In my blog that nobody reads I warned in December 2007 what was going on. In my April 28 TV Guide Featured Post I waxed critically and pessimistically about the problem faced by the workers in the industry.

The problem for me is my blog is entitled "The Lost Scripts" which expresses my worst fears about the broadcast TV industry.

Whether there will be enough votes to strike - 75% of the SAG membership - in my mind is doubtful.

But either way, this showdown may represent the end to an old dynamic that balanced the interests of workers against the power of huge corporations. We have Alan Rosenberg, a long time activist and believer in the rights of labor, pitted against the interests of GE, a rather impersonal major international corporation, and against the interests of Rupert Murdoch (Fox) for whom the business is very personal.

From a historical standpoint, it's interesting. But from the standpoint of a long-time (56 years) American TV viewer who loves scripted TV, it's depressing.


----------



## phrelin

From TV Week:


> Screen Actors Guild President Alan Rosenberg said SAG will conduct a strike authorization vote in December, inching the union closer to the brink of a strike.
> 
> Mr. Rosenberg made the announcement via e-mail and video message Wednesday.
> 
> "Now, per the resolution passed by 97% of our newly constituted national board of directors in October, we are launching a member education campaign and we will send out a strike referendum ballot to SAG members in December," Mr. Rosenberg said in his announcement. "We ask that you support your board and negotiating committee, and vote 'yes' to authorize the board to call a strike only if it becomes absolutely necessary."
> 
> SAG has already begun its educational campaign via its Web site with topics related to the strike authorization vote.


Articles can also be read at The Hollywood Reporter and Variety.

Again, while I think the case against the congloms (AMPTA) is strong, I still doubt they can get a 75% vote of the membership. People are scared in this economy.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Let's hope you're right, phrelin. 

To SAG, I have one word for you: BOO!


----------



## phrelin

From the LA Times:


> In a sign of rising tensions within the Screen Actors Guild, the group representing a moderate faction of actors within the union is urging its supporters to think long and hard before casting a ballot for a strike authorization vote.
> 
> ...In an e-mail sent to about 2,000 supporters of Unite for Strength, the group that recently won key seats on SAG's 71-member national board, organizers Amy Aquino and Arye Gross questioned whether the union was moving too hastily toward a showdown with the studios.
> 
> "In these historically difficult economic times, every reasonable possibility for making a deal must be explored before considering a job action, and based on the media reports we've seen, we're concerned this hasn't happened," the actors wrote.
> 
> Aquino is a former SAG board member and is a supporter of former SAG President Melissa Gilbert.
> 
> Current SAG President Alan Rosenberg said the e-mail was ill-considered.


----------



## phrelin

Well, the issue of election timing finally came up. From the LA Times:


> The question is, why would SAG hold such an important vote over the December holidays, when much of Hollywood shuts down? Some union critics think the timing is suspicious, and claim that SAG leaders would like nothing more than to see a low turnout, particularly among working actors who are the most likely to oppose a walkout.


And somehow I missed this article in the LA Times I guess because I was getting ready for Thanksgiving:


> ...Producers have pushed to get more series covered under a deal with the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, which has traditionally represented broadcasters and generally has a more harmonious relationship with the studios than SAG has had. Such series include ABC's midseason sitcom "Better Off Ted," with Jay Harrington and Portia de Rossi, and Fox's space spoof "Boldly Going Nowhere," currently eyed for the fall. Current shows such as "Gary Unmarried," "Rules of Engagement," "90210" and, yes, "Til Death" are also covered by AFTRA. And of course, AFTRA already covers most unscripted series, such as "Survivor," "American Idol" and "Deal or No Deal," which were left unscathed by the writers strike and wouldn't be impacted this time around either.
> 
> If it seems like AFTRA's clout in prime time is growing, well, it is. And that's because of the way TV shows have traditionally been apportioned between the two performers unions: SAG covers filmed projects, AFTRA those on video. The unions have dual jurisdiction for material recorded digitally -- and that's where AFTRA is seeing a big upswing. In fact, the trend toward more AFTRA shows represents a return to the state of the industry prior to the 1980s, when expensive filmed shows such as "Hill Street Blues" began operating under SAG deals.
> 
> SAG still covers the big filmed shows such as "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation." But even there, the networks might not suffer as much as they did during the writers strike. Many shows began production earlier than usual this past summer, so they have finished shooting a large number of episodes. One network source said some series have already completed photography on 15 to 17 episodes and would probably be close to having finished a full season order by the time any strike started....


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Congrats on 3k, phrelin! 

Interesting information.


----------



## phrelin

Stuart Sweet said:


> Congrats on 3k, phrelin!
> 
> Interesting information.


Took me a minute to figure out what you meant by 3k. Thanks for noticing.


----------



## Doug Brott

So a strike this time around might be a non-event .. and perhaps force SAG into an even deeper corner. Ah, the world of progress


----------



## smiddy

I think strikes suck...they hurt all sides of the equation. I wish there was some other way to make people arbitrate better.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

From Bloomberg:



> Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Hollywood's largest actors union urged members to authorize a strike, saying there is no other way to force film and television studios to negotiate.


From what I heard on the radio this morning, this was a meeting of 450 SAG members and the real question is whether this bloc speaks for the majority or not.

I sincerely doubt the SAG membership reads these posts but just in case the do...

It is simply bad marketing to try to execute this deal now. Put a statement on the table for both sides to sign saying that the current deal is accepted with the right to renegotiate in June 2009 when hopefully the prospects for most people will have improved. Do that, don't go on strike. Your public will not forgive you.


----------



## phrelin

Stuart Sweet said:


> Your public will not forgive you.


Nor will your credit card company or mortgage lender.


----------



## mreposter

With NBC putting Jay Leno on M-F at 10pm next fall, that's five hours less of prime time dama shows being produced, and NBC is headed towards more and more reality-type shows. If the unions aren't careful there won't be many jobs left no matter what pay scale they negotiate.


----------



## phrelin

Looks to me like odds on a 75% vote for a strike are getting slimmer and slimmer, from Variety:


> Civil war has broken out at the Screen Actors Guild.
> 
> Gotham leaders of SAG are demanding that the guild's plan to seek a strike authorization vote be called off due to the faltering economy, and they want the guild's contract negotiating committee replaced in the hopes that new blood will help end the guild's months-long stalemate with the majors.
> 
> SAG president Alan Rosenberg responded by setting the emergency national board meeting for Friday at SAG's Hollywood headquarters -- but he insists that the New York guild reps attend in person. Rosenberg blasted SAG's Gotham toppers for their "extraordinarily destructive and subversive" action.
> 
> A guild spokeswoman said SAG would not comment on why the emergency board meeting is a "face to face" session. New York reps indicated that requiring cross-country travel on short notice, when videoconferencing equipment is readily available, can only be interpreted as punitive and designed to hold down attendance by opponents of the guild's Hollywood leadership.


Also AMPTP and SAG are fighting a pubic relations war through print ads presenting the two sides in the best light. See Deadline Hollywood Daily for more information.

Personally, I understand the NY branch's concern over the economy. I also understand SAG President Alan Rosenberg's concern expressed as follows:


> Here's the truth:
> 
> -- Under the AMPTP's current offer, streaming of new television product on hulu.com and other new media platforms pays day performers about $46 for the first year's use. Not per run of the episode, but for the whole year, and that's only after a 17-day FREE rerun window. Peter Chernin, Chairman and CEO of News Corp., told industry analysts that his company's ad-supported online programming site, the already $12 million profitable HULU.com, was a "replacement for reruns".
> -- Under the AMPTP's current offer, there is no union jurisdiction for original made for new media projects made for budgets under $15,000 per minute. That's the vast majority of all new media. We have signed more than 800 productions to our SAG new media agreement. If we can do it, why can't the AMPTP? We are certainly willing to show them how it's done.
> -- Their proposal for original programming running on abc.com, nbc.com, cbs.com, and other network new media platforms is - zero. Yes, seriously, zero.
> -- Management is gutting the contract through the demand that we remove force majeure which has been a protection for actors since the first SAG agreement in 1937.
> -- Management has also demanded broad and sweeping changes to the more than half-century old clip consent provision which guarantees actors the right to consent to the use of their image and to be compensated for that use.
> -- Minimum increases in traditional media doesn't do actors any good if there aren't any minimums in new media.


It's a lose-lose choice.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I think I've said this before, it's a road that should not have been taken. That being said, I think the New Yorkers are maybe 1% more sensible on the issue, tipping the scales in their direction. This is simply not the right business climate for a union to be demanding more pay and benefits. 

Regardless of who is right this is the wrong argument to have today and in my opinion both sides need to agree to an interim agreement and begin negotiations on something they can live with long term.


----------



## phrelin

I think this discussion indicates the kiss of death for the militant's strike vote proposal. This article gives a very good feel for the depth of conflict within SAG. Here's a short bit from the long article:


> The contentious and at times bitter meeting capped a roller-coaster four days for SAG, in which opposition to the guild leadership's call for strike authorization has crystallized.


Perhaps what's most disturbing is that many of the well-known millionaire "actors" leading the opposition have resumés filled with "producer" credits. None of these people are facing their elder years supported by income from being a Walmart greeter.

The question is: How can a new bargaining committee get more than $46 a year for new media "rerun" views as opposed to what they get from network and syndicated reruns and from DVD sales? And if they don't get more, can "day performers" survive?

Right now we see younger familiar faces with no name recognition doing bit parts within the "CSI" and "Law & Order" families of shows. Reruns on the various cable channels give them some income to keep them going.

If in the future, rerun views shift to the internet derived from source sites such the GE and News Corp. owned Hulu, that $46-per-year maximum residual won't be much of a long-term income plan even when combined with waiting tables. If nothing else, those rerun residuals created a "ownership society" cushion during the wrenching mid-life career change away from acting.

It's difficult to understand why GE and News Corp. don't understand the risks of reducing the incentive for younger actors. Do they have in mind a return to a "contract-class" of studio-owned actors like in the mid-1930's through the early 1950's? Or do they have no idea what they're doing just like the major financial institutions? GE in particular focuses entirely on next quarter's profit increases and dumps any subsidiary that fails to meet the goals. The problem is the subsidiaries aren't allowed much room to invest profits into planning for the long term.

I agree with Stuart but with one additional observation. Now isn't the time for a strike because GE and News Corp. would be happy to let them be on strike during the time ad revenue plunges in 2009. Reduced production costs would mean better quarterly net revenues.

Had SAG and WGA coordinated an approach to shutting down production in a single strike beginning on April 1, 2008, they might have achieved their objectives within 60 days. Now the economy is in the tank, a shocked WGA is in a legal wrangle with the conglomerates over the post-2007 new media residuals clause in their contract, and SAG is tied up in a bitter internecine power struggle.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

The more I hear on the radio (in Los Angeles this is big news) the more it seems people agree with me, that this is just not the time.


----------



## phrelin

I've been a bit remiss keeping this thread up to date, but from Variety December 22:


> Facing growing internal dissent, leaders of the Screen Actors Guild have postponed SAG's divisive strike authorization vote for two weeks.
> 
> SAG national exec director Doug Allen declared that SAG's national board must meet first in order to present a united front before sending out strike ballots.


And again from Variety December 23:


> It's still unclear what direction the national board will take at its emergency meeting on Jan. 12-13, scheduled ostensibly by national exec director Doug Allen and president Alan Rosenberg to persuade the fractured 71-member panel to present a united front and convince members to vote up a strike authorization.
> 
> But the timing of the Monday night announcement was telling. It came a few hours after Allen and Rosenberg met with leaders of the Unite for Strength faction, a group of Hollywood moderates who gained five board seats in the fall after campaigning on a platform that asserted that Rosenberg and his allies had bungled the contract negotiations strategy.


It seems clear that the bargaining committee is facing a "no confidence" vote regardless of the ultimate outcome of the negotiations strategy. In any event our TV Spring Season appears safe as the actors duke it out among themselves.


----------



## bicker1

And this gives the producers more time to foster additional alternative sources for programming. We may yet see a competitive market for labor, in this industry.


----------



## phrelin

bicker1 said:


> And this gives the producers more time to foster additional alternative sources for programming. We may yet see a competitive market for labor, in this industry.


May yet?

CBS has scheduled the second season "Flashpoint" to start a week from Friday. It's a Canadian show introduced to the US by CBS last summer. And it's a pretty darned good "swat procedural".


----------



## bicker1

Yes, but we're still looking at just a few isolated instances; Flashpoint, the Philanthropist, etc. I think it is reasonable to expect that, sometime soon, if things continue as they are, at least a quarter of network programming may soon be sourced internationally.


----------



## phrelin

From Variety today:


> In a message sent Tuesday to SAG's 120,000 members, national exec director Doug Allen reiterated his oft-stated position that approval of the authorization won't guarantee a strike on primetime and features. That declaration's been widely disputed inside and outside SAG with the contention that SAG's leadership won't compromise at the bargaining table should the authorization receive the required 75% affirmation from those voting.
> 
> ..."Today's SAG statement suggesting that a SAG strike would not have a devastating impact on our industry, in the midst of the greatest economic turmoil since the Great Depression, simply defies reality," the AMPTP said. "The 100-day writers strike -- which resulted in the writers receiving the same terms that the DGA achieved without a strike -- cost our economy $2.5 billion. A SAG strike would cost the working families who depend on our industry even more -- at a time when everyone is already under extreme pressure by the unprecedented national economic crisis."


This has gotten so boring and reptitious that _The Hollywood Reporter_ isn't even covering these exchanges.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I'm happy they are just firing verbal missiles at each other.


----------



## phrelin

A few more articles have appeared, but this long one from Variety dated New Years Day summarizes it all in the first two paragraphs:


> The Screen Actors Guild is starting 2009 with a civil war raging over a possible strike.
> 
> SAG's moderate wing plans to replace the guild's negotiating committee -- and possibly fire national exec director Doug Allen -- in hopes of breaking the contract stalemate with the majors.


It does appear that President Alan Rosenberg and Executive Director Doug Allen might be thrown off the Negotiating Committee. Articles on that so far include:
SAG negotiators may be replaced (Variety)
SAG moderates seek to oust negotiating committee (LA Times)

I don't see how a 75% strike authorization vote among the members is even remotely likely. SAG basically has no chance to improve upon AMPTP's contract provisions accepted by other unions such as the Writers Guild which is now complaining to a mediator, "Hey we didn't get any money on new media."

Rosenberg and Allen are fundamentally right about the contract but totally wrong about timing and are failures at keeping their Guild political opponents "closer."


----------



## phrelin

From The Hollywood Reporter:


> It was hugs and kisses Sunday at the SAG Awards, but Monday morning brought out the knives.
> 
> Screen Actors Guild national executive director and chief negotiator Doug Allen was summarily removed from his posts by board members critical of his handling of the guild's TV/theatrical contract negotiations.
> 
> The ousting of Allen virtually eliminates any possibility of an actors strike.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Well played. Now hopefully we can see an end to this that leaves both parties with a shred of dignity.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Stuart Sweet said:


> Well played. Now hopefully we can see an end to this that leaves both parties with a shred of dignity.


Not to mention that no one had the stomach for taking a hard-line approach in this economy.

The public wins once in a while...


----------



## Doug Brott

Thankfully sanity prevailed. Unfortunately, I believe that actors will have it both good and bad. With the Internet starting to come in to play, in general, there should be more work for actors. However, the pay scale will likely slide downward for the "common" actor.


----------



## phrelin

Not surprisingly the conglomerates (AMPTP) and the actors (SAG) are at odds again, now over an attempt by the congloms to divide future negotiations up into "everyone else" and then SAG.

From The Hollywood Reporter:


> A particular sticking point is likely to be the provision that deems the new three-year contract active from the moment of ratification and not from the retroactive date of the previous contract's expiration, June 30, 2008. If ratified, the new contract would not begin until March or April (as it takes the union at least a month to ratify), pushing back the expiration of the new contract to spring 2012.
> 
> Because the WGA and DGA agreements expire in spring 2011, the timing would not allow SAG to band together with its sister unions for a stronger bargaining position during the next contract go-round. The AMPTP included a clause that states that if SAG and AFTRA ratify a new contract by June 30, 2011, then the 2009 contract would end then and the new one would begin.


Variety's take:


> The companies have insisted that they need the full three years to provide stability amid a volatile outlook for the industry. But such a term would push SAG's expiration to at least March 2012 and de-couple the end of the SAG contract faw away from the WGA's in May 2011 and the DGA's and AFTRA's in June 2011 - thus diminishing SAG's bargaining clout since there would be much smaller chance of SAG being on strike at the same time as another Hollywood union.
> 
> The AMPTP also said it would be willing to start negotiations on the successor contract no later than November, 2010, which would allow SAG to get back into synch with the other unions in 2014 - as long as SAG and AFTRA ratified the successor agreements by June 30, 2011.


In one sense, I think SAG is finally acknowledging that they screwed up by letting the WGA hang alone with the writer's strike, which was really a conglom lockout of the actors, directors, and trades designed (successfully) to divide and conquer. Together SAG and WGA barely have enough clout to impact the conglom's bottom line. (As I've said in the past the Director's Guild doesn't count - it's a middle management organization.)


----------



## Steve615

From startribune.com:
The SAG's board of directors rejected what was called the "last,best and final offer" by Hollywood producers for a new contract.
The contract was rejected by 73% of SAG's board members.

http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/movies/40041182.html


----------



## bicker1

Seems to me that Clooney and Hanks knew what they were talking about:

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/content...broadcast/e3iab3b217aa919c5ef9cefde669ea4987a

There already was a contract -- signed, sealed and delivered -- applicable to television series. In the face of that, there really was no logic in not agreeing to those terms deemed reasonable by the other union.

This is the way unions should work in our society, today: Competition between studios for talent, *and* competition between unions for work. A fair marketplace, without either side being able to shut down the other.


----------



## Herdfan

bicker1 said:


> This is the way unions should work in our society, today: ........and[/I][/B] competition between unions for work.


But is that really the case when most actors are members of both?


----------



## bicker1

Well, sure, each actor representing themselves would represent more competition, but I believe as few as three unions (yes, I know there only really are two unions right now), even with the vast majority of actors belonging to two of the three unions, would be enough competition to keep the market fair.


----------



## phrelin

In fact, Clooney and Hanks are producers (click on the links if you don't believe me). In fact, most over-age-40 big-name actors tend in this direction, even Sally Field.

You have to consider all those actors you see for less than a minute in scenes in the Law & Order and CSI franchises - you know, the faces you begin to recognize, but can't put a name to. They get a few pennies when a show gets syndicated to TNT or Spike or a DVD set is sold. But under the contract provisions agreed to by the DGA, WGA and AFTRA, they're getting nothing for "new media." SAG would accept this more or less, but the producers want to push reconsideration of this out as far as they can by adding time to the expiration date.

Even as actors, Clooney and Hanks don't depend on SAG, their "people" negotiate individual contracts that involve over 7 figures.


----------



## cweave02

In this economy, these people are stupid if they strike. Look what happened with the Writers' strike - it was reality TV mania then, and will be again. That is why I watch Discovery, Science Channel, ID, and the Travel Channel all the time.


----------



## bicker1

The issue isn't a matter of what Clooney and Hanks do, but rather that they were correct about what they said.


----------



## phrelin

bicker1 said:


> The issue isn't a matter of what Clooney and Hanks do, but rather that they were correct about what they said.


Hmmm. Well, if Clooney and Hanks (and all the big-name-actors-who-are-producers) would tithe 10% of their income into a "let's all share fund" to keep bit part actors in health insurance when the "no-residuals-for-new-media" policy begins to seriously affect their income, I might consider the remarks.

IMHO folks who earn 6 or 7 figures as a producer shouldn't even be active in a union. After all, the other side is the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television _*Producers*_. It's a little like having an executive at Ford Motor Co. who once was on an assembly line working his way through college claiming to speak for the United Auto Workers.


----------



## bicker1

With respect, it seems to me that you keep missing the point by fixating on what seems to me to be personal animosity towards the affluent successful members of the business.

Insisting others comply with your personal brand of sharing is presumptuous -- do you "tithe 10%" of your income to that fund? If you don't, then you are doubly out-of-line with your comments.

I don't earn 6 or 7 figures. I'm saying that Clooney and Hanks were correct.


----------



## phrelin

bicker1 said:


> With respect, it seems to me that you keep missing the point by fixating on what seems to me to be personal animosity towards the affluent successful members of the business.
> 
> Insisting others comply with your personal brand of sharing is presumptuous -- do you "tithe 10%" of your income to that fund? If you don't, then you are doubly out-of-line with your comments.
> 
> I don't earn 6 or 7 figures. I'm saying that Clooney and Hanks were correct.


I'm saying yes they were, from the producer's point of view, not from the point of view of a 40-something actor who picks up alot of work in TV and movies, small speaking parts. When that actor is 50-something and is getting no residuals from what we today call "new media", he/she will be hurting. This isn't even on the radar as meaningful to Clooney or Hanks at a personal level. And believe me, unemployment when you're over 50 is a very intense personal experience.


----------



## phrelin

From Variety:


> With negotiations stuck over the issue of the date for contract expiration, about 50 opponents of the companies' final offer rallied Wednesday in the drizzle outside 20th Century Fox.
> 
> The three-hour event, aimed at urging SAG members to vote down the ratification if it's ever sent out, featured sidewalk speeches at a half-hour news conference by former SAG president Ed Asner, former board member Sally Kirkland and veteran actors Larry Gelman and Scott Wilson. The quartet blasted the final offer from the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, alleging its new-media provisions will destroy SAG by making it impossible for middle-class actors to make a living.


----------



## bicker1

I'm not a producer or an actor. I'm a viewer and an investor.

How about you?


----------



## phrelin

bicker1 said:


> I'm not a producer or an actor. I'm a viewer and an investor.
> 
> How about you?


Well, actually I'm a viewer and an investor also. Had an uncle who was a producer, though.


----------



## phrelin

Since the issue is still simmering, I don't want to let this thread go to sleep.

From The Hollywood Reporter:


> With SAG's TV/theatrical contract negotiations stuck in neutral, there is growing concern that the guild's leadership is preparing to coast until its next election cycle, which would keep the industry in a state of permanent uncertainty throughout the summer. Or, worse, fears are surfacing that a resolution could be years away.


From Variety:


> SAG's top exec has reassured thesps he's trying to break the stalemate with congloms on the feature-primetime contract.
> 
> "While the rigorous confidentiality required in negotiation settings prevents me from providing a full update here, I want to assure you that we are working deliberately, and with as much haste as possible, to conclude our talks and bring to you, the members, a deal for your ratification," said national interim exec director David White in a message sent to members Tuesday evening.


In other words, something may be going on, or not.


----------



## phrelin

From Variety:


> SAG hardliners are calling on the federal government to investigate the alleged antitrust practices of entertainment industry congloms.
> 
> The move, announced Tuesday, is the latest development in the campaign against ratifying the feature-primetime contract. The guild dissidents - mostly members of the Membership First faction - are not acting as an official SAG group and have scheduled a Thursday morning rally in downtown Los Angeles outside the U.S. Dept. of Justice offices.


----------



## bicker1

Ridiculous. "They have to be colluding, since we're not getting our way." What silliness will they come up with next?


----------



## phrelin

While no one can know what goes on inside a marriage, it doesn't surprise me to see this headline Alan Rosenberg hit with divorce papers by Marg Helgenberger of 'CSI':


> For his sake, let's hope he can negotiate a divorce better than union contract talks.
> 
> News of the split came at the end of last year, but now she's made it official. She cites irreconcilable differences in her petition.


 It's hard to imagine how he could find the time and energy to attend to the marriage considering his obsession as an activist SAG President.


----------



## Herdfan

Interesting article



> Julia Roberts is getting $15 million to make Eat, Pray, Love, but Scarlett Johansson was only offered $250,000 for Iron Man 2. Kim Masters on the tactics Hollywood is using to slash salaries


http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-02/haggling-with-the-stars/

Don't have any idea how accurate this is.


----------



## phrelin

Herdfan said:


> Interesting article
> 
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-02/haggling-with-the-stars/
> 
> Don't have any idea how accurate this is.


Great catch! Masters is pretty highly regarded as a show biz business news source. So it's probably dead on.

"The concept of delaying the talent's payout until the studio recoups" should raise even more eyebrows about the likes of George Clooney talking about SAG's position in the negotiations.

What this contractual approach means is that the major producers, name directors and big stars don't get paid until the studio recovers, among other things, the money paid to the "scale" bit part actors. The more those actors cost in salary and benefits, the greater the risk that the studio won't recoup its costs and those "big names" won't get richer.

(I'm not focusing on Clooney alone, as he is not the only one. I don't think they're being venal, I just don't think they see their location within the big picture. Their interests moved across the table without their self-image.)

Again, it's like the guy attending Harvard and working summers doing some kind of manual labor. Yeah, when he gets to be CEO he has some memory of what the help is doing. But the union doesn't embrace him as the spokesman for negotiating with himself on their behalf.


----------



## mreposter

I'm jumping in without having read this entire thread, but... the whole idea of unique residuals for each permutation of use sounds a bit odd to me. In most industries, those that contribute to a product's design and manufacture get paid a salary or hourly wage. Only those that can independently patent an idea get paid on an ongoing basis. And in many companies patents generated by designers/engineers are the property of the company, not the employee.

For example, when GM used the Corvette platform to create the Cadillac SLR, they didn't go back and pay the engineers that designed it more money. (I'm sure someone's going to tear this analogy to shreds...)

I guess it comes down to who owns the "work." Does the actor who gives a performance in front of the camera "own" that performance and is only transferring temporary rights to a specific method of distributing that performance to the studio? Or is the studio buying the full and complete performance.


----------



## phrelin

mreposter said:


> I'm jumping in without having read this entire thread, but... the whole idea of unique residuals for each permutation of use sounds a bit odd to me. In most industries, those that contribute to a product's design and manufacture get paid a salary or hourly wage. Only those that can independently patent an idea get paid on an ongoing basis. And in many companies patents generated by designers/engineers are the property of the company, not the employee.
> 
> For example, when GM used the Corvette platform to create the Cadillac SLR, they didn't go back and pay the engineers that designed it more money. (I'm sure someone's going to tear this analogy to shreds...)
> 
> I guess it comes down to who owns the "work." Does the actor who gives a performance in front of the camera "own" that performance and is only transferring temporary rights to a specific method of distributing that performance to the studio? Or is the studio buying the full and complete performance.


 I think of it as more like a license with licensing fees. Whether it's a big star in a principal role or a bit actor in a small role, they do get something up front. At that point, the studio is exclusively licensed to use the performance. In the case of big stars with an "after the recoup" contract, they are gambling along with the studio hoping they'll get rich. The bit part actor is the worker who gets scale and may get some residuals when the movie or TV show moves to DVD and then to HBO and then to broadcast TV.

Right now a critical point of contention between SAG and the conglomerates are the "licensing fees" or residuals for the internet streaming or download delivery of the performance. In the case of the Writers Guild of America (WGA) who started this whole round with the strike and then folded under pressure, they either had a poor attorney or were dumb. According to the congloms the writers agreed to no residuals for work distributed on the internet which was produced after February 2008. Apparently that is, in fact, what the contract says.

The problem for all these folks is that their benefits like health insurance are provided through the guild. The premiums have to be paid even if you have a slump in your work. No residuals means no income means no insurance. And there are rules that ultimately result in loss of insurance if you have no income from the trade.


----------



## phrelin

In addition to the story link posted above about stars getting paid less, yesterday there was a long article in USA Today about how the TV network cost cutting includes "reining in those star salaries - reduced by 10% to 50% from their previous paychecks - and hiring cheaper, unknown talent and fewer established big-name actors."


> That's the math in the new Hollywood, where a combination of declining network ratings, sharply lower ad revenue and escalating production costs have forced cutbacks. The new austerity is being felt most keenly during the spring "development season," when networks groom a new crop of shows they'll consider for fall lineups.


At some point, actors will begin to realize that while they are struggling along on less-and-less "scale" earnings, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow has shrunk to a teacup. When that happens, we might see far fewer familiar unnamed faces with talent as "victims" on future L&O and CSI type franchises.


----------



## bicker1

mreposter said:


> Does the actor who gives a performance in front of the camera "own" that performance and is only transferring temporary rights to a specific method of distributing that performance to the studio? Or is the studio buying the full and complete performance.


The latter. As alluded to by others, you cannot own something ephemeral; once a moment happens, it is gone, and so an aspect of a moment in time cannot be owned. Only tangible items, recordings, licenses and rights can be "owned".


----------



## mreposter

I'm still struggling to accept the idea of residuals for work that seems to be unique to the artistic community. If a studio buys a performance, why should there be so many restrictions on how it distributes and sells that performance? 

As a stupid example, if I buy some lemons at the grocery store, I certainly don't expect to have to pay an additional fee if my daughter turns them into lemonade and sells it on the corner.


----------



## jhollan2

mreposter said:


> I'm still struggling to accept the idea of residuals for work that seems to be unique to the artistic community. If a studio buys a performance, why should there be so many restrictions on how it distributes and sells that performance?
> 
> As a stupid example, if I buy some lemons at the grocery store, I certainly don't expect to have to pay an additional fee if my daughter turns them into lemonade and sells it on the corner.


I'm with you - If I buy a painting, I dont expect to be charged to hang it on the wall and show it to people. When TMZ buys a photo (I think), they own it forever and can show it through whatever medium they choose.

I'm seeing a lot of foreign faces on American TV in the past year. I really couldnt care less who "stars" in a show so long as they are good. I think perhaps SAG thinks more of themselves than the American public truly cares.


----------



## phrelin

There is a tendency to think of the bit part actors as something like NFL player that don't play much, but still get paid and have benefits. That's simply not the case. They are more like union carpenters that work a job, the contractor pays them for their hours and pays into the union benefit trust, except that the studios don't pay into a benefit trust. Instead the contract calls for residuals which do support the actors benefits between jobs.

It's not a perfect world. But it's all they have for now, or should I say all they had.


----------



## bicker1

In the end, if something you want has terms and conditions, then you either live with them, or do without what you want.


----------



## phrelin

From the LA Times:


> SAG's interim executive director, David White, and a group of top entertainment executives are "very close" to resolving most of the remaining sticking points that caused negotiations to break off in February, said people familiar with the situation.
> 
> White has spent the last four weeks meeting privately with several top Hollywood executives, including Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Bob Iger and News Corp. President Peter Chernin, to end the standoff.


Hope it works out so we can retire this thread.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I'm with you.


----------



## phrelin

From Variety:


> The Screen Actors Guild has passed the one-year anniversary of the start of its feature-primetime contract negotiations -- without a deal in place, though one's expected soon.
> 
> Announcement of a tentative agreement may come as early as this weekend with SAG's national board meeting in a two-day session. SAG toppers and CEOs have been holding back-channel talks to sort out the remaining issues of when the contract will expire (SAG's insisted on a June 2011 expiration) and how much actors will receive in force majeure payments for TV series that went dark during the 2007-08 writers strike.


Of course the timing is perfect coming just as NBCU reports a 45% profit drop in the quarter. Makes the congloms seem like heroes for giving anything.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Dare we hope it? Could it be over?


> LOS ANGELES, April 17 (Reuters) - Hollywood studios and the largest U.S. acting union said on Friday they had reached a tentative agreement on a new contract, ending an acrimonious nine-month deadlock and averting a possible film and TV industry strike.


http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSN1735458820090417


----------



## phrelin

Yep. The story is showing up in several places. However, there will be a contentious ratification vote that, because of the deep divisions in the SAG membership, will be painful to watch. But unless the contract proposal is a disaster, it will be approved IMHO.


----------



## Doug Brott

WooHoo! ..


----------



## phrelin

It appears that we'll soon be able to close this thread. But Spring 2011 could be interesting. From The Hollywood Reporter:


> The main obstacle for SAG -- the AMPTP's proposed expiration date of three years after ratification -- has reportedly been resolved so that the new agreement, if ratified, will expire June 30, 2011. This will bring the end of the SAG agreement into synch with those of the latest DGA, WGA and AFTRA deals, timing which will allow the unions greater collective leverage in the next round of negotiations.


----------



## bicker1

phrelin said:


> Of course the timing is perfect coming just as NBCU reports a 45% profit drop in the quarter. Makes the congloms seem like heroes for giving anything.


And really shows how ill-advised it was for the union to refusal to agree to terms last year when things weren't so bad.


----------



## mreposter

The entertainment industry has some difficult years ahead of it. The internet is radically altering all sorts of media businesses - just look at what's happened to the music industry and what's going on in with newspapers. Movies and TV are next on the list. I certainly don't envy anyone in the business right now.


----------



## phrelin

From The Hollywood Reporter:


> SAG's national board of directors voted 53.38%-46.62% on Sunday afternoon to approve its tentative new TV/theatrical contract. The deal will be passed on to the membership at large for a ratification vote beginning in early May. A simple majority of "yes" votes is required for it to pass.
> 
> The thin split in the board was not unexpected and represents a party-line vote between the coalition of self-described moderate forces and the only slightly outmanned MembershipFirst faction. The ensuing battle for the hearts and minds (and votes) of the rank-and-file should prove just as contentious.


From the LA Times:


> Among other things, the contract provides for pay increases of 3.5% a year and establishes payments for shows streamed over the Web. The contract, however, does not give actors rerun fees, known as residuals, for most shows created for the Internet, a sore point among critics, including SAG President Alan Rosenberg, who voted against the agreement.


From Variety:


> But the end of this tortuous yearlong negotiation process hardly means the end of strife within the Screen Actors Guild. The battles that raged internally and externally over the contract only heightened the intensity of the political and ideological conflicts that engulf SAG's various factions.
> 
> The stage is thus set for more brawling in the next few months as campaigning for the guild's fall election of officers -- including a possible successor to Alan Rosenberg as national prexy -- and board members gets under way. The campaigning is sure to turn on two polarizing issues that go to the heart of SAG's biggest headaches: the prospect of a merger with rival thesp union AFTRA, and the question of implementing qualified voting on guild contracts.


More details can be found in an article in TV Week and an earlier Variety article.


----------



## phrelin

According to Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood Daily:


> SAG's National Executive Director David White has been telling everyone what rotten financial shape the Guild is in.... I've just learned tonight that SAG has retained one of the priciest flackeries, The Saylor Company...to develop a PR campaign that will persuade members to ratify the SAG-AMPTP tentative contract.
> 
> ...Don't get me wrong: Mark Saylor is very good at his job. "The staff at SAG have spent the last year arguing against this contract. Now they have to argue for this contract," an insider tells me tonight in defense of Saylor's hiring. "Wouldn't you want to bring in a fresh set of eyes in thinking through communications strategy?"


And regarding the other side, from Variety:


> "The more people that we can get to vote, the better chance we have to get this voted down," said Scott Wilson, organizer of a last-minute antiratification rally Thursday. "I think we have a real chance to defeat this if we can get the information out to the members."
> 
> ....It's uncertain what would happen if the deal went down to defeat, although opponents contend that such a move would force the congloms to offer SAG better terms in new media. The AMPTP's insisted that SAG has to accept terms that are equivalent to those in the WGA, DGA and AFTRA deals and emphasized the final offer's generous amid the current recession.


The sad part of this is that it's pretty unrealistic at this point not to wait until June 2011 when the new contracts end to start creating new ways to divide the pie as the media industry itself maneuvers to find audiences in thetotal structural reorganization that began in earnest in 2008.:nono2:


----------



## phrelin

Yes, it's time to raise this thread up again, this time in the middle of Upfronts. From Variety:


> Rosenberg's comments came as SAG began its pro-ratification campaign to persuade members to vote up the pact. That push kicked off Sunday with an "I'm Voting Yes" online video posted on the SAG.org web site with endorsements by 34 members including Ed Begley Jr., New York SAG president Sam Freed and board members Amy Brenneman, Adam Arkin and Kate Walsh.
> 
> The video notes SAG members have lost an estimated $85 million in pay increases by working without a contract since the June 30 expiration. It also emphasizes that the new deal will increase feature production - which has been mired in uncertainty for the past year - along with providing new media jurisdiction.


According to the article, 90% of primetime pilots have signed with AFTRA rather than SAG.


----------



## phrelin

As balloting is in progress (ending June 9) "stars" are taking sides with the larger number of endorsements in the "yes" on the contract camp, according to Variety.


----------



## phrelin

We can now retire this thread, as reported in The Hollywood Reporter:


> The membership of SAG officially ratified its proposed new two-year TV/theatrical contract Tuesday by a margin of 78% to 22%. SAG members had been working under the terms of the previous contract since June 30 as negotiations stopped and started during the past year.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

It is my distinct pleasure to close this thread and thank phrelin for his tireless efforts on its behalf.


----------

