Submit a tip to Insider
  • More
Back to Hollywood Insider Home
EW Home

Actors' talks update: SAG negotiations end with no deal, focus now on AFTRA

May 7, 2008, 02:21 AM | by Lynette Rice

Categories: Movie Biz, Strike, TV Biz

After three weeks of "insufficient progress" negotiating with the Screen Actors Guild, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers announced that it will turn its attention to the other actors union, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, starting today. The goal will be to hammer out a new primetime contract for AFTRA-covered shows like Rules of Engagement, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and 'Til Death, among others — and, ultimately, to avoid another debilitating Hollywood strike like the writers' walkout that ended in February. The contracts for both SAG and AFTRA expire June 30.

Although SAG had released a statement saying it was prepared to negotiate around the clock until a deal was done, the AMPTP argued "significant differences" on DVD residuals, streaming, and made-for-new-media prevented its talks with SAG from continuing. "Under these circumstances, with SAG's continued adherence to unreasonable demands in both new and traditional media, continuing negotiations at this time does not make sense," said an AMPTP spokesman. But in a statement posted on the union's website, SAG President Alan Rosenberg argued that negotiations should continue if both sides want to keep the town working. "It is unfortunate and deeply troubling that the AMPTP would suspend our negotiations at this critical juncture," he said. "We have modified our proposals over the last three weeks in effort to bargain a fair contract for our members. We are committed to preserving rights that have been in place for decades and not giving the studios the right to use excerpts of our work in new media without our consent and negotiation. Our negotiating team is prepared to work around the clock for as long as it takes to get a fair deal."

For its part, AFTRA has already successfully negotiated a new multi-year contract (a.k.a. Network Code) for its daytime actors and game/reality show talent. It is widely believed that if the AMPTP and AFTRA agree to a new primetime deal, the pressure will be on SAG to make a deal of its own before resorting to another crippling strike. "Our industry was not starting from scratch with this round of SAG negotiations," said an AMPTP statement, citing the deals the organization made with writers, directors, and AFTRA earlier this year.

But SAG argues that the AMPTP had put forward a proposal that "differed substantially from the deals signed with the DGA and WGA." SAG claims that the conglomerates' clip demand "would gut existing provisions regarding actors' consent to use of their clips and would allow studios and networks to use or sell clips — going forward and from their libraries — in any way they choose and without consent."


onebigkaka Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 07:10 PM EST

I hate greedy people. FIGHT NOW or get more taken in the future.

Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 04:56 AM EST

What ever happened to working for the audience.

We have lost the concept of entertainment and are becoming an industry revolving around money. While the industry has always been contingent with the all powerful dollar, many of us entered this business to create and now we are not allowed to do so. When will money take the passenger seat and creativity become our main goal again.

dabfx Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:48 PM EST

I am a artist that works for union films in pre production. I have no union. My job is not secure . Just as many union workers when the film hits set i am out of a job moving on to the next. I have no insurance. And here is the thing.... I love what I do. that is why i came to LA not for union deals, not for residuals ,not to argue over my wages. and because of a group of workers who essentially play pretend I can barely afford to eat. this strike is just uncalled for . why should actors get more money? they put no risk or investment into these films. its plain greed that drives this situation. Lets stop to think about all the other people like myself that are suffering far more than any SAG member. their selfishness is putting a heavy weight on those who are already worse than themselves.

Jake Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 03:28 PM EST

SAG is the worst Union in the US. They already destroyed the commercial industry. If they strike they will do more damage than good. They have no common sense.

LMG Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:56 PM EST

I have been an actor for 30 years in Canada. In Jan/Feb of 2007 the Canadian version of SAG (ACTRA)struck for the first time in its 60 year existance on many of these same issues. Mainly the fight for fair payment for new media distributed product. It is the future main distribution tool. Be assured that the 26,000 actors in Canada support your actions in solidarity, as SAG did ours in '07.

A SAG strike also means less work in Canada. We do not work productions seeking to avoid the SAG strike by coming to Canada. It is deemed struck work for us too. Nevertheless, we support your fight. If someone is making money from your(our)work, we need to be paid fairly too. We get it!

billy Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 02:52 AM EST

yes, the whole situation sucks. Gas prices are high and this will undoubtedly make many people rethink their career choices.

This is entertainment folks. Either do it, or shut up, go home and sell insurance. No offense to anyone who actually sells insurance, it's just a figure of speech.

Everyone lives in L.A. with the dream of making a killing.

This SAG strike, or SAG non-strike will not affect many of the big, pretty people the average-joes thinks it will. All of the big deals will always be on a case-by-case basis regardless of any out-come.

So, if you are an average joe, STRIKE YOUR ASS OFF. Or please, go home and sell insurance. It's not a bad life. Just no more whining, please.

Ty Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 03:05 PM EST

Strikes hurt everyone, but the populous is so anesthetized these days that they only care about themselves. If you really want to avoid a strike, then grow a pair and write the AMPTP and tell them to negotitate a fair deal! The current proposal is NOT a fair deal, given the gains SAG and other unions have made over the years. If there is a strike, get out there and strike with them! The more the better. Fight for a cause higher than your little existance for once! With the exception of production assistants, everyone in production is in a union. When did the unions (and America) devolve into a bunch of ingrate, spineless wusses? It's like you all want to be in a union to reap the benefits, but you forget that they worked hard to fight for fair pay and working conditions. Now it's our turn to champion the cause and fight for fair pay. The AMPTP is at fault, not the unions. We're not going to roll over and take a shoddy contract, so if you want to avoid a strike, then fight with us.

Ty Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 02:52 PM EST

The WGA strike was difficult to endure but completely justified. It is unfortunate that there are millions of other jobs that are caught in the crossfire, but they need to be on our side. There are causes higher than our own, and that principle is that actors, writers, directors, the crew and everyone else that works SO HARD to put a concept on a screen should NEVER be coerced into accepting below the line payments. What people don't realize is that people involved in production usually work 12 hour days or more, and they deserve to be paid a decent amount when producers, studios, and networks make exorbitent amounts of money over and over and over again based off of our work. The unions are there for a reason. AFTRA leadership has behaved like a word that rhymes with wussies like they always do. We need to tell the AMPTP that we will not be taken advantage of. If ever there was a year to hit them with a strike, now is the year! It is the AMPTP's fault for not giving us a fair deal!

Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 07:26 PM EST

I am not an actor i am a teamster in the movie bizz. I really dont get it when the average sag is making over 50k (from what i hear) not counting the ones who are making millions upon millions. Then they get residuals on top of that.I feel like those are good wages for essentially part time work. Also we have the best insurance around and i agree they are trying to ruin that along with our retirment. But with the amount of money im sure they can invest and put some of the residuals away that most of the workers never see. We barely can get a credit let alone money after we are done.

Greg Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 11:33 AM EST

I am one of the 44,000 actors belonging to both SAG and AFTRA. I just mailed in my ballot to AFTRA approving the contract. SAG is currently run by a gang of hot heads intent on grabbing their "Union Now" moment. This is NOT the time for that. Screw SAG.

zoey Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 07:14 PM EST

I am not a SAG or AFTRA actress. I guess you can say I am independent, but hoping to become a member of SAG in the next 1.5 years. I want to know: if SAG goes on strike, will it keep other actors/actresses from being able to achieve their goals in the acting industry? How long would this strike last? Will it cause people who are not currently involved with SAG to not be a member until the srike is over??
Thank you

cheril Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 05:07 PM EST

Hey,
As a member of SAG I would like to know why there are less and less SAG work than there use to be? Alot of stuff on Bravo is non-union as in other cable networks. It doesn't make sense to me that a professional actor that has worked on their craft looses out to someone that needs their home re-done? Thanks!

Lily Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:48 PM EST

Forgive me if I'm intruding (I'm not an actor) but could someone PLEASE, PLEASE explain why there are two guilds for actors that both seem to cover TV?

Chiefy Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 09:11 PM EST

I just don't like the fact that I had to pay up my SAG union dues to go on an audition, and now they are talking about striking. At the end of the day people need to work, if they cannot come to an agreement on this stuff, then they need to leave it out of negotiations and do it on a case by case basis like Ian suggests.

LJO Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 01:18 AM EST

CAB has an interesting point. It makes a lot of sense that the real burden to Producers in regard to actor salaries is from the highly over-priced performances of a select few actors which Producers have been willing to pay presumably because of anticipation of higher box office numbers.
What if SAG agreed to cap their salaries? Are the people who are actually working willing to trade in their rights to negotiate for ridiculously high salaries and ludicrous perks (like their own personal hair-stylist that they won't work without) in exchange for the "working-class" actors' residuals? That allows the Producers to be capitalists and the actors to be socialists if they choose working for their own common good- everyone walks away happy and living in their own idealistic world.

Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 07:34 PM EST

98%? Sounds to me like there are alot of people that should be looking for other professions. And if SAG strikes there will be alot of people looking for other professions and not just actors. A strike by SAG would ruin this town, this industry and alot of peoples lives. Now is not the economic climate to be calling for a strike.

the anonmyous Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 07:08 PM EST

I am all for a strike personally, although a short one would be nice. i am soon to be in a Sony film, by one of my FAV directors, run by sag, although on his lowest budget yet, im excited! =D this stirke will postpone the movie though, which sucks. im hoping for a little while of a strike, enough for all you SAG pplz (who im not one of yet) to get what you want, then all the acting to go on again. personally, i truly dont care how much i get paid, unless its sufficent for the job( i wont take 50 cents for a Colombia picture, nope.) ive done a few PSA's and they are acting without pay so yeah. im in it for the acting, which is why i want a short strike. plus i dont want to go back to school in november! =D =D =D =D =D =D!!!

#44 Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 06:23 PM EST

Mush,
You are a moron...........! It is an open forum in response to an article.

mush Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 03:56 AM EST

PS: why are non-SAG/non-actors even reading and posting on this page? Let us do our jobs:

to entertain all you 'REGULAR' people.... just pay us for it, okay?

mush Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 03:48 AM EST

SARAH-you really don't know what you're babbling about. I'm a working actor. But i still have to bartend to supplement my income because the time from one job to the next can be weeks, months, even years apart. YOU have no idea how tough, competitive, brutal and rewarding it is to be an actor so please do not write what you don't know anything about! Trust me, when it comes to the big picture of who gets paid what: 98% of us "working actors" are at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to big paychecks. Do your homework and google what SAG actors scale is. Couple that with the fact that 98% of all working hollywood actors make less than $5000 A YEAR! the union will do whats best for us with or without you chiming in with your 1 cent idea of what it's like to be an actor.

Ian Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 04:11 PM EST

Ok, as a SAG actor, I gotta tell ya. this life is not easy. here is what SAG ought to do: walk out and call a stike now- next publicly offer 4 of the major studios contracts and case by case contracts for independent producers. For the studio contracts it should be a first-come-first-serve basis. What this will do is force the studios to break ranks and under cut each other- put simply this is union busting.
imagine what would happend if Sony, MGM, Disney and Paramount were the only groups that got to make movies for a 3 year span! what do you think would happen the next time we had a negotiation? yep we could have them compete for us!
This is a solution that would work; think about it- the indie circuit will keep some of the production jobs around, the actors will continue to work; and would earn more reasonable salaries.

to the production people- I'm sorry, But SAG does not exist for your benefit, it just doesnt. It exists for ours, the actors.
you could wait tables too.

Willerving Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 01:42 AM EST

I think they will strike, Hope not but they will

Mike Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 08:11 AM EST

As a Toronto film technician, I stand beside what the SAG members feel is important for them to earn a sustainable living. Remember, in order for the Producers to expect the availability of motivated, qualified actors - they have to create the conditions that compensate actors for the periods in between when they are not working. If the Producers don't do this - they will only be left with a few making a good living surrounded by hacks - ultimately making everyone look bad. You want the best - you got to pay for it. And that means for the Producers to put their own house in order. I know with the Producers driving my standard of living down, not sustaining this industry in Toronto because they think they are saving a few dollars elsewhere, that I am leaving this industry permanently. We can only stand so much. At least SAG can be heard.

Mike Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 07:58 AM EST

Is a sustainable living in the Film Industry possible for the rank and file? What I see happening on the lower labour levels that I work in is that a massive disproportionate amount of money is being funneled upwards into fewer and fewer hands - with huge slush funds for people that don't do anything productive or vast amounts of waste that occurs because many of the people that make decisions above the line do not know what they are doing, and do not plan very well. In the past this excess cash existed to fund this unproductive waste. Not any longer. The lower ranks are being squeezed to death to make up this difference. We as film technician labour are not in an effective position to defend ourselves because the Producers are playing off one city against the other. The writers and the actors are the only ones with the power to stand up and address these issues. Make the studios stop the waste and doling out these sums to themselves and the top name actors.

Mike Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 07:44 AM EST

I'd like to bring in another perspective as a Toronto film technician. Up here we are also on pins and needles regarding this impending strike. Last year our Canadian Actors went through the same negotiations and shut down productions in Toronto for a few months. Many of our technicians heaped blame and anger on them, cursing "those actors!". These comments were made in light of the fact that the Producers had shut down Toronto's film industry that previous summer because our local film union's talks had broken down. What happened in our case, was that the Producer's demands were so unreasonable, essentially stripping our conditions down to the point chain gang labour - basically wanting us to work with any human regard for our families. We had to, with self respect say no. The Producer's deliberately starved us out that summer, with our Actor brothers suffering as well. I bring this up because it illustrates the fact we are all facing the same issues and corporate mindset.

Paul Fri, May 30, 2008 at 01:40 PM EST

I'm begging you...please re-consider a stike. As a below the line film employee the writers strike nearly ruined me. Another strike less than a year later will force me to file chapter 11. Not to mention I just moved to Albuquerque. Please consider the ramifications of a strike in regards to the 90% of the people who work in the industry are like myself - below the line.

Location Scout

DAD Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:07 AM EST

Hey CAB you said "If Martin Luther King Jr. thought that way, where would civil rights be?"

Are you seriously comparing DVD and web streaming profit sharing to the civil rights struggle? I'm sure your industry is not perfect but let's not be over-dramatic! Your saying that the average actor doesn't make much money. Wont this strike just help the high end A-listers anyway? What percentage of DVD sales can a bit-part actor expect to make even from the best of deals with the producers?

Michael Russnow Sun, May 25, 2008 at 03:37 AM EST

Regarding the SAG/AFTRA Negotiations and their conflicts, I think it appropriate to take a look at an article I recently wrote for The Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-russnow/the-sag-negotiations-two_b_92973.html

It features a couple of one minute videos by German Film and TV actors, Andreas Stenschke and Detlef Behr, who expressed support for the WGA Strike, but speaks to the betterment of U.S. actors and the hopes that foreign actors can achieve the same results in Europe, which Americans have taken for granted over so many years.

Struggling Actor Fri, May 23, 2008 at 11:47 AM EST

I'm current a middle income background actor/Actor, but I have also worked in the technical field several years back. I must say that unless you are an A-list star; you make less money than any temparary school teacher. That's less than 25K a year, and that's putting a lot more time in than the 40-50+ hours/week.
This divide and conquer tactic that AMPTP is using among AFTRA is disgraceful!!!! It makes most actors the lowest income citizens in the US.
If a strike occurs, I'm switching back to electronic work.

TG Wed, May 21, 2008 at 02:21 PM EST

DO NO STRIKE ! WORK OUT THE CONTRACTS DURING PRODUCTION !

TONY GUASTELLA Wed, May 21, 2008 at 02:16 PM EST

THINK ABOUT IT ! DO NOT STRIKE ,THE 100 PLUS DAYS DAYS LOST IN THE LAST STRIKE COST ,MANY PEOPLE ALOT OF MONEY .WORK OUT THE CONTRACTS DURING PRODUCTION-PLEASE ! DO NOT STRIKE ! LOTS OF COMPANIES WILL BE HURT OR CLOSED .IT WILL HARM MANY PEOPLE THAT MAKE THIS LARGE CALIFORINA BIZ WORK. DO NOT STRIKE ! TG THE LEADMAN

momoftwo Tue, May 20, 2008 at 09:16 PM EST

I just want to say that if SAG strikes my families livelihood is at stake. My husband does physical special effects. We are middle class. If this happens for more than a month we could lose our home. We have school age children. Please think of people like us when you vote. Thanks for listening.

CAB Tue, May 20, 2008 at 02:25 PM EST

and one more thing...

People are also forgetting another major reason for the problems facing the entertainment industry, particularly film and prime time television...The huge disparity in income from the stars to the working class actor.

The producers want to cut the minimums for actors, as well as cut residuals. But they have never fought the $20 million dollar salaries of stars, which are directly resulting in less production and less pay for people in other areas as well as the middle class actor.

If the producers really want to save money, and actually make more product to be able to make more money and employ more people, they need to say no to these obscene salaries.

Now, as an actor, would I like to make $20 million a movie? Sure. But I think I could survive on half that, maybe a quarter, what do you think? And then, there will be money for more production and the ability for working class actors to actually make a living.

CAB Tue, May 20, 2008 at 01:55 PM EST

and on and on

To say that every product placement shouldn't be an endorsement deal...you don't seem to understand how advertising works. It IS an endorsement deal, that's the whole point of it. These producers pull in BIG $$$ for an actor to drink that soda on camera. The actor is the one that is selling the product. Shouldn't they see some of the benefits? If you are making a commercial, then you do, but if you're hired for something else and then used to sell a product...it's only common sense.

But Sarah, you are correct. Unfortunately, the producers really hold all the cards. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE UNIONS AND STRIKES! You are basically saying, it's too hard so why bother? If Martin Luther King Jr. thought that way, where would civil rights be? There are a ton of examples of why that logic just doesn't fly. Just because it's hard, we should let people walk all over us and take our rights and our ability to make a living.

CAB Tue, May 20, 2008 at 01:41 PM EST

more...

I seriously hope we do not strike. I also have many friends and relatives who work in other areas of the business and I saw what the writer's strike did to them. I also think a strike now will be the end of SAG, and will seriously kill the ability of an actor to survive. But the truth is, if the producers have their way, there will be no more 'working class' actors who can survive on their craft. You will either be watching all reality TV or there will be a much lower standard of actor. It will be hobbyists. The quality of work will be seriously diminished.

On another point, I happen to also work in the internet advertising industry. I see how much money these companies make through advertising online. Residuals are in place because everyone agreed that there should be compensation for the people who actually sell a product. That includes the shows that surround the advertising, because without those shows that people tune in to see, there wouldn't be any advertising.

CAB Tue, May 20, 2008 at 01:29 PM EST

To continue...

I have a few friends who actually do work pretty consistently. Their credit list is long and their demo reels are impressive. I was amazed and discouraged to find that they are still constantly struggling financially, and struggling to continue to work. Unless you are in a daytime soap, or a lead on a major hit series, and even then, there is no job security for actors. It's a never ending struggle for all but serious A list stars.

Having done some work, I will admit that the pay is good. Last fall I did a part on a network series, and for 3 days of actual work (really about 2 plus 10 minutes) I made $2,124.92 after taxes. Not bad...but not only was that the last work I got, but the amount of money I have to spend to be prepared and able to even audition for something makes that all go away very quickly. On top of that, it reran in March and the PRODUCERS have not fulfilled their LEGAL OBLIGATION BASED ON THE CONTRACT THEY NEGOTIATED to pay me my residuals!

CAB Tue, May 20, 2008 at 01:11 PM EST

Sarah - First, I can totally understand thinking that actors are spoiled and make a fortune. That is the perception the majority of the public gets through the rest of the media.

As someone who has been acting since grade 5, and has spent the last 15 years trying to make a career out of it, and who happens to know A LOT of actual working actors...it's a freakin' hard hard hard business to make a living in. As stated before, 95-98% of actors are not working - AT ALL. And it is not for lack of trying, and in the trying there is a TON of money to be spent in preparation. It's never ending. I don't have the time to go in to the many many things we have to do and all the money we have to spend just to have the ability to INTERVIEW for a job! Imagine if you had to go on job interviews 5 times or more a week. Of the few percent that do work, the majority of them still don't make enough to actually survive, much less take care of a family, and still have to keep multiple other jobs.

Neil Mon, May 19, 2008 at 01:17 AM EST

Sarah are you serious? If you think that all actors are making 20 million dollars you are freaking delusional. The MAJORITY of SAG members make less than $25,000 a year. A lot of these people would have no way to support themselves or their families without residuals. Acting is an extremely tough business, very few actually make it. You are living in a bubble if you actually believe that most actors lifestyles resemble those from STAR magazine.

Sarah Sun, May 18, 2008 at 03:14 AM EST

Oh, and furthermore? I don't feel sorry for an actor who is forced to drink a soda and then say how good it is. If someone gave me a couple thousand to drink sugar and smile, I'd take the money and do it. GREEDY! Actors are supposed to ACT. If they have to pretend to like a soda, oh well, they are getting paid for the acting, not for the product. Every product placement should not be an endorsement deal--that's just totally unreasonable.

Bottom line? People felt sorry for the WGA because they are using their brains to create these shows and make chump change compared to actors and directors. No one is going to feel sorry for SAG.

Sarah Sun, May 18, 2008 at 03:14 AM EST

Oh, and furthermore? I don't feel sorry for an actor who is forced to drink a soda and then say how good it is. If someone gave me a couple thousand to drink sugar and smile, I'd take the money and do it. GREEDY! Actors are supposed to ACT. If they have to pretend to like a soda, oh well, they are getting paid for the acting, not for the product. Every product placement should not be an endorsement deal--that's just totally unreasonable.

Bottom line? People felt sorry for the WGA because they are using their brains to create these shows and make chump change compared to actors and directors. No one is going to feel sorry for SAG.

Sarah Sun, May 18, 2008 at 03:06 AM EST

Yeah, of all the unions SAG is the one I feel least sorry for.

They obviously suffer from big egos, and really, they have no right to strike. And they live in a freaking bubble.

I'm sorry, but actors make plenty of money compared to the rest of us regular working folk. Oh, no, poor them, they have to live off residuals? Wah wah wah. Excuse me, but I live in the real world, where when I get laid off from work I don't GET residuals to live off of. Yeah, I have to find a new job, too. I also have to pay my own car insurance, health insurance (you think my company covers 100%? yeah right, nobody has that kind of coverage anymore), mortgage, etc. And my gross pay is not my net pay, either--whose is?! We all have to pay taxes, Social Security . . .

I'm sorry, but acting is an easy, easy, easy life. There is no reason on this Earth why anyone should ever make $20 million dollars to be in a 2 hour movie. And $200 for standing around for a day? That's pretty good, too.

AAA Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:42 PM EST

I do not work in the film industry nor do I have any inclination to do so. I do however work in a creative field and understand the concept of working a job because you love it, not because it pays. As a practicing Fine Artist, unions are foreign to me. Painters have no overreaching entity that governs them; they can't collectivly call for a strike when galleries or museums do something they don't like. Respectable Galleries take a minimum of 50%. They negotiate with buyers and get control of any images you produce while you're contracted with them. One part me wants to say stop complaining. My work is reproduced and distributed without my permission. I'm not compensated for that. The other part of me dislikes they idea that larger corporations are raking in money at the expense of those who perpetuate it. Overall I think its a catch-22. If the strike occurs many people will loose their livelihood. If not, these corporate systems will continue to take advantage any way they can.

tempest Sat, May 10, 2008 at 04:02 PM EST

from what i can tell, being little more than someone who watches a heck of a lot of media and wishes to be part of the industry when she finishes school, all striking is gonna do is make people disinterested when ya'll finally go back to work... so maybe you should try to preserve the industry instead of trying to run it into the ground with demands

#44 Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:23 PM EST

Dear Dave.
I don't know what you do in the film industry. I am sure that whatever it is you work very long days. I am also sure that you care about your job. Nobody does this work unless they love it. I don't know if you are a union member..... ( only because you did not state so..... ).If you are a union member and don't get direct residuals your pension and health does on your behalf. I believe the figure is somewhere in the Area of 56%. The money is pooled into a general fund. That is one of the reasons that IATSE does not have a premium for their health insurance. It is fully funded. ......... A majority of that funding comes from residuals.

smithee Thu, May 8, 2008 at 07:15 PM EST

I bet "Betsa" works for one of the studios...

Betsa Wed, May 7, 2008 at 09:07 PM EST

Steve - The DGA was the impetus it is true. There was so much dissension between the WGA and the AMPTP. But I keep asking, what great strides were made? Who won in the WGA strike? Not the WGA. If SAG strikes will they win, probably not. So who looses? Everyone. SAG, WGA and everyone who works in the entertainment industry will get dragged in and will suffer. The only ones who will win time and time again, no matter who strikes is the AMPTP. Why, because they hold ALL of the power. We will never be able to break them. We will just hurt ourselves. The only way to win this is for actors and writers to alien themselves and start their OWN networks, maybe in a new territory, online! It's time to create a new paradigm. And yes, of course the AMPTP employs underhanded tactics. They are very smart men with a lot of money and power. They will win, every time, until the day you stop receiving a pay check from them.

Richard Wed, May 7, 2008 at 08:12 PM EST

STRIKE! STRIKE! STRIKE! I am a background sag actor. The base rate for background should be raised to $200 a day. Unless we get close to that
I will vote to STRIKE!

Steve Wed, May 7, 2008 at 07:22 PM EST

Besta - The WGA AMPTP negotiations resumed after the DGA negotiations and the AMPTP could stall no longer and still lay the blame on the writers. The AMPTP have underhanded tactics.

Betsa Wed, May 7, 2008 at 04:38 PM EST

Steve _ I am not buying your argument. How many bad movies has Brad Pitt made? He's still working. Perhaps the studio don't care about the "B" & "C" list actors because they keep hiring all the same "A" list actors over and over again. The "A" list actors get their agents to negotiate great deals them. Did anyone see "Leatherheads?" I don't think George Clooney is crying about his sullied reputation. I am sure he laughed all the way to the bank.
The WGA AMPTP negotiations broke off because the writers would not take animation and reality off the table. When those issues were removed, the talks resumed.

JackOfAllTrades Wed, May 7, 2008 at 03:35 PM EST

lets say you were a plumber and you did such a great job installing a toilet that people come from all over to look at it.
The owner then starts to charge admission to see your great work.
Eventually...so many people come by the house that a local business puts up advertising on the house. (paying the owner of the house but reaping compensating profits as a result of the advertising)
Unless you are not paying attention...you can figure out that that money is being made as a result of your "above average" toilet installation skills.

Now the neighbor across the street wants in on all that cash and asks you to install a toilet in THEIR house. This time.....it would really be to your benefit to negotiate some kind of deal on the resulting cash-flow.
If you believe that you only need to be compensated for your time when you install the toilet...that's great for you.
But it would not be "unfair" or "greedy" of some great toilet installer to want to have at least SOME of that resulting cash

Anthony C. Wed, May 7, 2008 at 03:27 PM EST

It simply amazes me that the general American public is so ignorant of the facts when it comes to a writers or actors strike. The vast majority of the SAG membership is not "greedy spoiled actors" yet just trying to get their fare share for their work. The actors have to pay their own benefits and insurances for themselves AND their families out of their salary. The actors have to pay salaries (i.e. commissions) for their agents, managers, publicists or others employed by them. The actors gross total is not their net (take home) total. The AMPTP is trying to continue their unfair practices established back in the days of Beta/VHS. The SAG union is only trying to make things fair. Most actors and their families have to live off their residuals until booking the next project. Auditions mean headshots (paying for a photographer), classes (developing their craft), among other things. Actors have bills just like everyone else. Most actors are far from rich. The AMPTP are the greedy ones.

Steve Wed, May 7, 2008 at 03:21 PM EST

Besta - I believe the AMPTP/WGA negotiations broke down for two reasons. 1) To terminate costly contracts that the studios regretted signing. 2) To make the writer's look greedy. And it worked; contracts were terminated and the writers were made to look bad for allowing "Tens of thousands" of people being out of work. The studios laid these people off, not the writers. As far as "If the actors and writers want more money then they need to start their own networks so that they control the power." I agree. You ask “Who takes the risks?” The studios do as far as the financial end, but the actors have their reputation on the line. Look at Al Pachino in "88 Minutes." Whether a movie gets good reviews or not could be the difference between an "A" list and "B" list for an actor. Which also determines how much the actor will get paid on their next project.

JackOfAllTrades Wed, May 7, 2008 at 03:21 PM EST

Although SAG and AFTRA have some very high profile members in their unions who DO make obscene amounts of money, they are both unions of MOSTLY regular (non-millionaire) members (myself included) whose representatives are simply trying to get the MOST compensation for their members given the amounts of money made as a result of the work of their members.
Just like ANY union.

A sticking point seems to be the "made-for-new-media" point.
Look at this page these comments are on. There's advertising all over it.
THAT'S how streaming things online makes money. When someone "streams" work of a SAG or AFTRA member online....you can bet that right next to it is an advertisement. Those advertisement rates are going to be based on "hits" to the site.
If you are an artist (even if you're a millionaire already) and your work is online attracting many "hits" (and thereby upping the advertising rates that site can justify charging) your "work" is generating income for someone other than you.

Betsa Wed, May 7, 2008 at 02:43 PM EST

So long as the AMPTP has the money, they hold the power. Steve - The reason the AMPTP/WGA negotiations broke down is because the WGA took on a arrogant, self entitled attitude. The leadership began posturing like rock-stars. At the end, the gains were SO minimal and these leaders angered many of their own. Many writers felt betrayed because the gains were so minimal. Was that strike worth it to those who lost so much? If the actors and writers want more money then they need to start their own networks so that they control the power. Who takes the risks? Who bankrolls every single project? The studios! I am not saying that I want to break bread with these moguls, I am just stressing the point that so long as they hold the power, they will continue to hold the power, unless a shift occurs. A strike will not bring about a shift, it will just hurt everyone, including those who strike.

Steve Wed, May 7, 2008 at 02:22 PM EST

Suio - Parents used to tell their children that there are starving people in other countries in order to guilt them into eating everything on their dinner plates. Now that America is primarily obese there are still starving people in other countries. The issues between SAG and AMPTP seem pretty trivial compared to natural disasters and world hunger, I agree. Look at all the people in this country that are homeless, but that doesn't mean others shouldn't go buy a home. If it would solve world hunger to give up a few cents for DVD residuals then I'm sure most actors would gladly give it up, but I don't think the billion dollar conglomerates would.

suio Wed, May 7, 2008 at 01:59 PM EST

Look at some other countries in the world and tell me about America at the same time: 1) Some countries have to pay $18 a gallon for gas, 2) Some countries can barely afford to feed their citizens, 3) and other countries have been through major weather related disasters and have lost 22,000 lives, and their world is in a shambles. And we are supposed to care if actors receive residuals from dvd sales, etc.??? This isn't what we should be thinking about right now, and while entertainment is a valued commodity in America, it isn't worth making so many rich while at the same time watching so many die. How much wealth do these spoiled greedy actors need? I would rather stop watching movies all together than keep hearing about how much more money the actors want to make. Disgusting.

Steve Wed, May 7, 2008 at 01:52 PM EST

Besta - If you remember correctly the AMPTP walked out of the negotiations with the WGA; Sort of like they just did with SAG. Why do people seem to think that these billion dollar companies are in the right and everyone else is wrong. It's about what's right to the workers and it's about more billions for the conglomerates.

Betsa Wed, May 7, 2008 at 01:40 PM EST

Steve - What world are you living in? "Hundreds of people out of work" If there is ANOTHER strike, there will be tens of thousands out of work. The losses incurred by working actors and other industry workers will never be recouped. Talk to the writers who lost jobs and production deals due to the WGA strike. My guess is that the actors who are fighting with the AMPTP will not be affected by a SAG strike and were not affected by the AGA strike because they aren't working actors. They can endure a strike because they have other jobs.

Eric Beck Wed, May 7, 2008 at 01:08 PM EST

I love when people talk about "spoiled actors", etc. CLEARLY, those are the ones that don't know ANYTHING about the acting profession, and CERTAINLY nothing about what the various union negotiations are about. For every actor making a decent living, 100's are working a second or third job to make ends meet, all in the hopes that SOMEDAY, they can eke out a living doing what they love to do. Acting is one of the more nobler professions, 'cuz it CERTAINLY isn't about the money. The money, IF and when it comes, is pure gravy.

Steve Wed, May 7, 2008 at 12:38 PM EST

As sad and unfair as it seems that in the event of a strike there will be hundreds of people out of a job, the actors don't pay the salaries. The conglomerates pay the salaries; they put these people out of work. If "Guy in the Bar #3" feels he deserves residuals then You can't force "Guy in the Bar #3" to work because Suzie the caterer will be out of a job. The studio needs to worry about Suzie's job, not "Guy in the Bar #3." I’m just sayin’...

Betsa Wed, May 7, 2008 at 12:37 PM EST

actingup - I agree with DAVE! A strike is not going to change anything. If you don't like the working conditions for an actor, then try a different industry. A strike is not going to do anything but put you and the entire industry out of work, AGAIN. This will hurt the city's economy and then everyone will then become resentful of SAG just like we all hated the WGA for burning us. Initially the industry was behind the WGA but then their leadership took on a self-entitled arrogant attitude. Like I said before, if you want a better deal, get a better agent. You don't see Brad Pit, Tom Cruise or Eva Longoria belly aching! Fighting with the AMPTP is not going to change a thing except halt television production again which will drive more people to the internet. Those of us who work in the industry can withstand another hit. Strikes are NEVER productive. Talk to the grocery store workers. The minimal gains they got did not offset their loses from being out of work for months!

Dave Wed, May 7, 2008 at 12:12 PM EST

Anyone who sides with SAG on this one either has an agenda or doesnt understand what actors make. Yes the average per SAG member is low, but that is because most cant find work as actor, and have other jobs. $759.00 a day MINIMUM is alot of money for almost anyone in this country.

Dave Wed, May 7, 2008 at 12:03 PM EST

I did not have the right to negotiate for residuals, only DGA WGA and SAG get them, a no one has the right to negotiate for anything if they put us all out of work. I'm all for individuals getting whatever they can, but if I cant work because a few waiters with a pipe dream are demanding 5 cents extra residuals for a part they will probably never get. Again, working actors usually make better than scale deals through their agents and arent complaining. MOst people would be thrilled to do these peoples jobs for free. I'm glad there is Union protection so people can get their health benefits, etc, but does the person playing "Guy in the Bar #3" really deserve extra money everytime a film is shown even a film, like most, is not profitable?

Bill Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:58 AM EST

The guys at SAG should be applauded for making a stand.

If they cave in, what's the point of effective leadership?

I'm all for a SAG strike. The only ones who are not are the media congloms.

Steve Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:51 AM EST

David - you said "I will never see another cent beyond the fair salary I negotiated before production began." You NEGOTIATED; why didn't you negotiate for residuals? You had the right to negotiate, why shouldn't they?

Mikey Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:47 AM EST

When you go to work, does your boss ever force you to drink a soda and say how great it is? If he did and then sold it without your permission, would you be pissed?

Producers now are getting extra money by forcing actors to gush over products in the shows. (Tony Soprano talks about a car, etc). The producers make a ton of moeny off this and the actors get nothing.

These are the issues being dealt with. And assuming all actors are rich is like me assuming you own your own company simply because you have a briefcase.

Steve Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:44 AM EST

I supported the writers and I support the actors as well. I don't understand these people that are crying over gas prices and their salaries. I'm an office manager living from check to check because that's the profession I chose. I get by from week to week, but a friend of mine went and paid CASH for a $200,000 house. How dare him? I'm thinking of blaming him for all my financial problems. Seems fair, right?

Dave Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:40 AM EST

Matt G-Did you get paid when you worked in the first place? Then you were already compensated. I work in the film business in a creative capacity as well, and ALL of the dozens of films that feature my ideas, art and creativity will be shown indefinetly in all kinds of media and I will never see another cent beyond the fair salary I negotiated before production began, and I received until production ended. The SAG strike will put tens of thousands of workers who will never get residual checks in the mail during the strike and make much less than the DAILY MINIMUM of $759.00 that actors receive plus residuals. How do you sleep at night taking money away from real working so can you can pick up a few extra pennies from online streaming?

Dave Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:40 AM EST

Matt G-Did you get paid when you worked in the first place? Then you were already compensated. I work in the film business in a creative capacity as well, and ALL of the dozens of films that feature my ideas, art and creativity will be shown indefinetly in all kinds of media and I will never see another cent beyond the fair salary I negotiated before production began, and I received until production ended. The SAG strike will put tens of thousands of workers who will never get residual checks in the mail during the strike and make much less than the DAILY MINIMUM of $759.00 that actors receive plus residuals. How do you sleep at night taking money away from real working so can you can pick up a few extra pennies from online streaming?

actingup Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:31 AM EST

The overwhelming majority of actors are NOT RICH. For the 98% of actors who are struggling and trying to become working actors - the few extra cents on DVDs can make the difference between paying for health insurance or not. On average the majority (95%) of SAG member make $5000 or less a year. So before you call them all "rich actors" do the research. On the flip side - the producers and studios are now multi BILLION dollar conglomerates. And they are raking in the money. Disney just announced RECORD PROFITS. So they cry poverty on one hand and take in the money hand over fist on the other. And they only make money because writers write scripts, and actors act in their projects, and crew work on their projects - etc. So SAG is only looking for fair compensation. The producers WANT a stike because they want to destroy SAG (and all unions).

MattG Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:01 AM EST

As a SAG/AFTRA/SSDC and AEA member, some of the comments here amaze me. I am not rich nor famous, but need the protection that these negotiations are fighting for. I eek out a stable living what I have done for over 20 years. Last year a film that I worked in used a clip of mine online (my image, my craft and my creativity and art) with no compensation. The film is also being distributed online via NetFlix; again, no compensation. Media and distribution change fast in these times and our contracts need to reflect it. To give producers carte blanch rights to use our images and creativity at their whim would be professional suicide. I love how most people believe that the majority of working actors make a six plus figure salary - when in reality 98% of union actors are unemployed on any given day.

Betsa Wed, May 7, 2008 at 09:50 AM EST

If SAG strikes, no one will win. The WGA went on strike and burned the entire industry in the process, and for what? Significant gains were NOT made. Like the WGA, SAG can't expect The AMPTP to do what their agents should be doing. You want a better deal? Make you agent work harder. It's the non working actors who aren't making a deal. The working successful actors want a deal.

Joe Wed, May 7, 2008 at 08:46 AM EST

Labor negotiations are always tough. Actors are just people in the process of improving their lives. Can't blame either side, but both sides have to be smart and reasonable. Tough spot for both...

Hello! Wed, May 7, 2008 at 08:43 AM EST

This issue is not about mere money.... it is about protecting ones rights. Surely all should be able to recognize a slippery slope when one sees one. Why are the conglomorates getting bigger? Why are the rich getting richer and middle class falling into decay? And as for the poor ...God help us all. When we allow the powers to be to make choices that define their bottom line and justify their avarice we have mortgage failings, Enrons, foreclosures, job lines. Look at the big picture. Actors( most make far less then the Tom Cruises of the world) musicians, writers dancers,did in deed choose the life they lead, but they like the rest of us should be paid for the work they do. When you are sad, want to celebrate, seek contemplation, where do you turn,the arts. For most likely to soothe, to calm, to uplift, to encourage, to feel a part of something. The arts can teach us compassion, can inflame us, can entertain us. After a hard day at a job you may be less then fond of..where do you turn?

Axel Wed, May 7, 2008 at 08:09 AM EST

With all due respect, you made your choice for your job. This country is about choice, and if you made bad ones, then you should rectify that. You are not a victim. You have a problem with the price of gas. We all do. That has nothing to do with actors' salaries. The country's suffering has nothing to do with actors' salaries. You want to stick it to them, vote for Obama. That way, the actors will get hit nice with the taxes, and you'll be doing something for the environment. And ultimately, if you can't live on your salary, I hope you don't have kids that you can't support.

Tian Wed, May 7, 2008 at 07:42 AM EST

If SAG strikes I am done with scripted television. I quit watching many shows during the writers strike fiasco, many others did as well, as the lower ratings across the board show. I agree with the poster about the Gas prices, the American people are suffering and we are supposed to side with a bunch of spoiled overpayed actors, let them live on my salary and see how they like that.

Axel Wed, May 7, 2008 at 07:39 AM EST

That's an ignorant statement. Actors work for years to establish themselves, a lot of times with years in between jobs. They take the brunt of impact if a show doesn't work because it's their faces on the screen, and they consistently have to deal with unwarranted public critique and sycophantic obsession with what clothes they wear, or who they date. You have the anonymity of your computer, and that disgusts me. Buy a hybrid jackass.

Jim Wed, May 7, 2008 at 07:18 AM EST

Whaa! freaking Whaa!
While millions of Americans can't afford gasoline, they want to get RICHER. They disgust me.
js


advertisement

Add Your Comments

The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject — or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.



  • 1000 characters remaining
    • When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.
Latest Comments
Advertisement
Top Categories

All Categories

Reporters
Blog Roll
Recent Posts
Archive
July 2009
S M T W T F S
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

Complete Archive