Less than 48 hours after AFTRA actors ratified their union’s new three-year primetime contract, the Screen Actors Guild yesterday rejected the latest offer from Hollywood conglomerates, which supposedly offered more than $250 million in additional compensation. Following the rejection, SAG released only a brief statement saying its negotiating committee would reconvene today – though chief negotiator Doug Allen added that “we did not reject the AMPTP’s offer, we made a comprehensive counter proposal that adopted some of their proposals and offered alternatives on others.” Still, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers responded by urging SAG leadership to take the offer to its 120,000-members for review.
“The refusal of SAG’s Hollywood leadership to accept this offer is the latest in a series of actions by SAG leaders that, in our opinion, puts labor peace at risk,” the AMPTP said in a statement. “SAG’s Hollywood leaders have already pursued a time-consuming, divisive, costly, and unsuccessful anti-AFTRA campaign. Any further delay in reaching a reasonable and comprehensive agreement does a disservice to the thousands of working people of our industry who are already being seriously harmed by the ever worsening de facto strike.”
It could be weeks — maybe months — before SAG hammers out a new
agreement with the studios, but an actor’s strike still appears
unlikely. A strike can’t happen without 75 percent of the SAG
membership authorizing a walkout, and it seems questionable whether
President Alan Rosenberg can get the votes now that AFTRA has ratified
its deal. But Rosenberg has made it clear that he doesn’t want to
accept a carbon copy of the deal accepted by the smaller,
70,000-plus-member AFTRA, which he described as the union for
“newspeople, sportcasters, and DJs.”
Though the SAG contract expired June 30, production continues on
several TV pilots and series planned for the 2008-09 season. Most film
production dried up in June because of the uncertainty surrounding the
SAG negotiations.
It could be weeks — maybe months — before SAG hammers out a newagreement with the studios, but an actor’s strike still appearsunlikely. A strike can’t happen without 75 percent of the SAGmembership authorizing a walkout, and it seems questionable whetherPresident Alan Rosenberg can get the votes now that AFTRA has ratifiedits deal. But Rosenberg has made it clear that he doesn’t want toaccept a carbon copy of the deal accepted by the smaller,70,000-plus-member AFTRA, which he described as the union for"newspeople, sportcasters, and DJs."
Though the SAG contract expired June 30, production continues onseveral TV pilots and series planned for the 2008-09 season. Most filmproduction dried up in June because of the uncertainty surrounding theSAG negotiations.
Comments (1-20) of 20 Add your comment
Who cares. Read a book.
SAG needs to stop being asses and sign the deal. Instead of fighting with AFTRA over their ratification for weeks they could have been negotiating.
Who cares. Frak your girlfriend.
I agree with Chris. I’m sick of SAG thinking they deserve a better deal than all of the other unions in the industry got. SAG needs to get their enormous egos in check, sign the deal and let everyone get back to work.
Given the state of the economy in the U.S. Maybe SAG should be worried about what the strike could bring to ecomony, and to the actors and other workers that rely on actors, should it happen. The other unions found something they could accept, why can’t SAG. They are looking greedy and they are putting the upcoming television season in peril even if they need 75% approval and with AFTRA approval; it would seem unlikely that would happened. Even so. Find a happy medium please. Then get rid of Rosenburg because it sure looks like he wants a strike and has done nothing to show differently. The television season CAN’T take another hiatus in the middle… please settle.
What some of you folks don’t seem to realize is that SAG has been negotiating whenever the Producers would deign to meet with them. Which hasn’t been as frequent as honest negotiations would call for.
In addition the producers are taking advantage of strike-induced fatigue and fear among the ranks of hollywood workers to try and force an unfair and biased deal down the throats of working actors. Aftra is noted to be weak at negotiations, rarely coming up with a deal that benefits it’s acting membership, and the “yes” vote was passed in large part because a strong minority of their membership aren’t even actors and don’t have to worry about the interest or well being of actors. Without their votes this poor contrct wouldn’t have been ratified.
In the end the working actors and day players will be screwed by this contract (the “name” actors don’t have to worry about any of the minimums that are so odious in these contracts) and the producers will continue to disproportionately profit.
Folks should also realize that most of the sticking points are conditions that weren’t relevant to either directors or writers but specifically have to do with conditions for actors.
Instead of blaming the actors for not bowing to the will of the powerful, perhaps some of this ill will should be directed at the producers who’ve made a habit of imperiously feeling they deserve so much of the profit that working actors have a difficult time making a living over the long term.
I always find it quite humorous when people comment on things in a section like this when they have no idea of the true facts. AMPTP has since the beginning offered a horrible deal and used the media (which they control) to make the actors appear greedy. SAG is fully in the right to stand up for the working actor which now can barely afford his family, his bills, his benefits (yes, actors have to pay their own benefits, photographers for headshots, acting classes to perfect their craft, etc.).
Want some cheese with that whine Anthony?
Every career has it’s pros and cons – and if you choose to be an actor, you have to know it may be very hard going – but you can also hit it really big. And successful actors make more for ‘pretending’ all day than cops, firefighters, teachers and those who really should be making hundreds of dollars for a days work, or millions for a movie. SAG has to realize, the general public can’t relate to the demands SAG is making because it isn’t at all relevant to their lives and the hardships they face on much smaller salaries. Actors make good money period in comparison to the general public – and if an actor isn’t making good money, then they need to get another job or a second one like the rest of us. The rest of us get paid for the work we put in on a specific day – we don’t make profits off the work we did that day months down the line if someone uses it. Everyone in the negotiation seems greedy but even thinking of stiking NOW, in this economy, seems REALLY greedy.
Anyone who thinks that the greed of someone who wants to make a living off of his career (as opposed to this myth of getting rich) is the same as that of multi-billionaires who don’t want to dilute their multi-million dollar salaries and profits, is fooling themselves. Often as note this self-delusional righteousness is a result of unenlightened self-interest (I want my TV shows on time and I don’t care what it takes) as opposed to the claim of “the greater good” (The poor struggling below the line workers will suffer.)
The poor below the line workers who suffer ARE, as often as not, the actors who toil without any job security at all, so let’s put that supposedly enlightened bit of reasoning to sleep.
Any time that the working class is told they should grin and bear it for the greater good while their masters are excused from anything resembling the same standard, the people preaching this are usually guilty of psychological myopia. The comments on this board seem to bear this out.
But why should an actor be any different than the majority of workers in America? So they struggle – we all struggle – but most of us can’t threaten to stop working in such a way that it threatens the lively-hood of a whole lot of other people – many of which don’t make what actors make, and truly can’t afford to be out of work in this economic climate waiting for someone else to get a ‘better deal’. If the other unions have come to an agreement and find the terms acceptable enough – when SAG cries foul on the same type of terms, it doesn’t garner SAG any real support or sympathy – because it appears (and I do say ‘appears’) that they want more – and on the surface, that looks greedy. Never mind that a lot of people learned they could find other things to do during the writers’ strike. It’s unfortunate timing perhaps, but a strike right now would be devastating – and like it or not, would fall on SAG’s shoulders (unless they can better defend and illustrate their position).
SAG IS BETTER!
STRIKE! STRIKE! STRIKE!
My computer before would not allow me to post the second half of my statement. Mike, what you and many other fail to realize is that sluggish economy or not, the SAG membership should NOT agree to a deal that does not resolve the issue of New Media, DVD residuals, and Product Placements. If they were to ratify just because of the hard times now, in three years when the contract comes up again, SAG will never get it back and will lose even more ground. I say Alan Rosenberg is fully aware of what true working class actors need and is virtueous for sticking up to the miserly scrooges at the AMPTP. Go Alan!
When you say “doesn’t resolve the issue” – do you mean, doesn’t resolve the issue truly, or simply doesn’t resolve it to the leadership of SAG’s financial liking? There is a difference – and that is where the general public gets loses patience. The SAG members don’t get a stake in those media, or don’t get ‘enough’ of a stake in those media? To most of us these days, a raise is a raise. And if they get a raise, then when things are better, when conditions are better, you can get a larger raise. Like the rest of us.
Mike-
You’re just repeating (intentionally or not) the rubric of Producers that when times are better or more is known, at some vague time in the future, the actors will possibly be granted their requests.
The fact is that there NEVER has been a time when the producers have made any real concessions to the actors without the threat or actuality of a strike, and whenever a precedent has been set (even with the promise of changing the terms at a later date) the “temporary” compromise on the part of the actors is treated as immutable precedent during the next round of negotiations.
As for your contention that “most of us can’t threaten to stop working in such a way that it threatens the lively-hood of a whole lot of other people”, it shows a lack of understanding of precedence of the effect of strikes.
You may not like those awful awful unionists for standing up for themselves at the cost of missing an episode of a TV show, but without inconveniences no progress is ever made.
television is down, what 11% after the writer’s strike…can Hollywood really afford another strike now? I mean, I’m all for equal pay for fair work, it sucks to be used and abused…we’ve all been there…I hope its worth it, cause there’ll be a whole lotta folks lookin’ for jobs if this doesn’t get resolved soon…good luck to ya’ll, looks like I’ll be Netflixing this fall…
Of course it’s worth it. Entertainment is great but not at the cost of what’s moral or proper. They’ll still have to make movies for you to get from Netflix so there won’t be a loss of jobs, just a shift in the medium.
mike I used to feel the same way about firefighters & teachers salaries vs actors salaries but they don’t generate revenue the same way a July 4th Will Smith opening movie does.
xvslahbf dngtps fjglbpymh vcetgykz brzyc gnlywshi vsbgpi