Comments on: SAG leaders reject latest offer from studios

By: wfebsmvp irhngd

wfebsmvp irhngd — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:19:16 +0000

xvslahbf dngtps fjglbpymh vcetgykz brzyc gnlywshi vsbgpi

By: laura

laura — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:00:10 +0000

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.

By: Rashad

Rashad — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:50:58 +0000

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.

By: donner

donner — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:02:53 +0000

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…

By: UnionMember

UnionMember — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:55:39 +0000

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.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 05:27:34 +0000

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.

By: Anthony C.

Anthony C. — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:25:25 +0000

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!

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:38:54 +0000

SAG IS BETTER!
STRIKE! STRIKE! STRIKE!

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:33:46 +0000

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).

By: UnionMember

UnionMember — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:51:23 +0000

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.