wfebsmvp irhngd Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 02:19 AM EST

xvslahbf dngtps fjglbpymh vcetgykz brzyc gnlywshi vsbgpi

laura Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 01:00 PM EST

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.

Rashad Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:50 AM EST

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.

donner Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:02 AM EST

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...

UnionMember Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:55 PM EST

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.

Mike Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 08:27 PM EST

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.

Anthony C. Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 05:25 PM EST

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!

Richard Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 04:38 PM EST

SAG IS BETTER!
STRIKE! STRIKE! STRIKE!

Mike Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 03:33 PM EST

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).

UnionMember Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 02:51 PM EST

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.

Mike Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 01:12 PM EST

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.

JK Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 11:23 AM EST

Want some cheese with that whine Anthony?

Anthony C. Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 09:17 AM EST

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.).

BarelyWorkingActor Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 09:13 AM EST

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.

BarelyWorkingActor Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 09:08 AM EST

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.

Stacey Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 09:03 AM EST

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.

Amanda Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 08:39 AM EST

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.

Tom Strong Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 08:12 AM EST

Who cares. Frak your girlfriend.

chris Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 08:00 AM EST

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.

donnie Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 07:14 AM EST

Who cares. Read a book.