Screen Actors Guild and studios amp up the rhetoric war

With the collapse of mediation talks between the major studios and the Screen Actors Guild, the warring parties wasted little time launching campaigns aimed at discrediting each other while courting the sympathies of actors who will cast ballots in a strike referendum next month.

In a letter sent to the union's 120,000 members today, SAG President Alan Rosenberg blasted the major studios for seeking to impose "one-size-fits-all demands" on the union and accused management of using the depressed economy as an excuse to rebuff the needs of actors, especially when it comes to securing their future in the burgeoning world of online entertainment.

"It's also curious that these global corporations are preaching to us about the bad economy,'' Rosenberg said. "Like it's our fault. As middle-income actors we are the victims of corporate greed. We didn't cause this turmoil. Now, more than ever, we need to make a unified stand, in solidarity. … Our ability to make a living as professional actors for decades to come is at stake."

The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which bargains on behalf of the studios, issued a swift rebuttal: "SAG's latest mass e-mail fails on three counts: It fails to explain why SAG deserves more than everyone else in the industry. It fails to justify why SAG members should bail out a failed negotiating strategy by striking during a time of historic economic crisis. And it fails to explain why it makes sense to strike when SAG members will lose more during the first few days of the strike than they could ever expect to gain."

The mass e-mails kicked off an informational campaign that the guild's negotiating committee overwhelmingly approved Saturday after a federal mediator declared the talks were over. The guild is expected to spend more than $100,000 on a campaign to muster support for the strike referendum, communicating through e-mails, mailouts, newsletters, town hall meetings and residual checks.

SAG launched a similar and unsuccessful campaign to defeat a contract negotiated by the smaller actors union, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, which has since secured a number of pilots for TV shows as producers look for a hedge against a possible strike by SAG. The 44,000 members who belong to both unions could be pivotal in determining the outcome of the strike vote.

The AMPTP has mounted its own campaign, aimed at portraying SAG's leaders as out of touch with economic reality and seeking better deals than five other unions that have signed agreements with the studios. They will get their message across through various advertisements and possible direct mailings to SAG members, sources close to the studios said.

Amid the conflicting claims, the ailing economy is certain to play a central role in the referendum, in which SAG members will be asked to give the union's board authority to call a strike "as a last resort."

Although Rosenberg did not specify when ballots would be sent, guild insiders said tit probably would be by mid-December. It would take 30 more days for ballots to be counted, meaning that the earliest SAG could strike would be in early January. The timing appears aimed at disrupting the Golden Globes and Academy Awards shows early next year. The board has final say over whether a walkout would occur.

In order to pass, a strike authorization requires approval of 75% of members who vote. Ordinarily, that would be a given. Union members typically approve such votes overwhelmingly as a show of solidarity to their union leadership and in the belief that the threat of strike can yield gains at the bargaining table. What's more, the vast majority of SAG's members do not earn their living through acting, so they have less to lose in the event of a shutdown in film and TV production.

On the other hand, those members who rely on other jobs to supplement their incomes also are more vulnerable to the broader economic downturn and could be less inclined to support a walkout.

— Richard Verrier

Comments

[Ronald Shimokaji]

Calling for a strike authorization in times of economic crisis nationwide is tantamount to committing economic suicide. I once belonged to a Non-crafts local of the International Association of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) while employed at Universal Studios. We were threatened by calls for strikes by both the Screen Actors Guild and the Directors Guild. By asking the membership to authorize a strike, the leadership of SAG has put the organization into a position where the livelihoods of hundreds of employees of businesses providing support services are threatened. I recall how many friends of mine were affected by the Writers Guild strike. They were owners and employees of caterers, costumers, technical services, and other support services. The focus should be placed on Congress to set forth reasonable regulations governing Internet distribution of intellectual properties not only abroad but in this country as well

[Kalai Strode]

As a member of the DGA, SAG, and Teamsters, I sat in a Teamster meeting where our leaders explained the Teamster approach to the subject of internet distribution of new media (films, TV, etc.). The Teamster approach was to tell the producers that we will not require an "a priori" division of profits on the internet at this time for the current contract, HOWEVER, after the current contract expires, INTERNET DIVISION OF PROCEEDS WILL BE ON THE TABLE FOR THE NEXT CONTRACT. The logic here is that the producers do not yet know to what extent the internet is profitable and should not divide up the yet-to-be-determined profits. Don't count the chickens before they hatch. After this current 3-year contract expires, all profits from the internet will be quantified and divisions of profits can be determined for the next contract. In my opinion, the SAG leaders are putting the cart before the horse, and should abide by the offer made by the producers with the UNDERSTANDING that the division of profits will change after they become quantified.

[Ron Spring]

The members of SAG and the corporation that refuse to come to an amicable agreement had best keep in mind the necessity of economic restraint. These are historically dangerous times and while the film industry provided welcome respite from the everyday travails of Depression America in the 1930's, there are too many other options available to the public now to rely on them plopping into the seats of a darkened theatre. When it costs nearly $50.00 [including admission and refreshments] for a couple to attend a first-run film, I can't think of too many persons crying over the plight of rich actors and even richer corporations.

[RBBrittain]

Telling stat: Dual SAG/AFTRA cardholders make up more than a third of SAG's membership--more than enough to deep-six this horrendous strike call if they so choose. If this strike happens, SAG may find itself consigned to the same dustbin of history as PATCO, the old air traffic controller's union crushed by Ronald Reagan--who ironically once headed SAG.

There's no way SAG can get a better deal than WGA, DGA, IATSE, and especially AFTRA--which could prove to be SAG's undoing, especially if (IIRC) SAG is demanding sole jurisdiction over Internet acting, a shot across the bow at AFTRA. If so, the only thing this strike will do is create a single actors' union--not by merging SAG & AFTRA, but by "permanent replacement" of SAG members and AFTRA taking over SAG's jurisdiction.