SAG: big union + small turnout = strike authorization?

There is a saying in politics that whoever controls the turnout wins the election. That's as true in presidential elections as it is in Hollywood labor politics.

A key vote later this month by members of the Screen Actors Guild could push the entertainment industry toward another bitter strike nearly a year after screenwriters ended a 100-day walkout. The union's negotiators say they need the strike authorization vote to give them leverage in contract talks with the studios that have stalled for months.

The question is, why would SAG hold such an important vote over the December holidays, when much of Hollywood shuts down? Some union critics think the timing is suspicious and claim that SAG leaders would like nothing more than to see a low turnout, particularly among working actors who are the most likely to oppose a walkout.

But people close to the union's negotiating committee say the voting delay is necessary to give the guild enough time to conduct its "educational campaign" in order to build support for its cause at a time when the union remains sharply divided over the best course of action.

That's in marked contrast to the Writers Guild of America, which was firmly united when members overwhelmingly approved a strike authorization last year.

SAG, on the other hand, has been beset by feuds between moderates and hardliners over negotiating strategy, contract demands and strained relations with its sister actors union, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. (AFTRA quickly reached a new contract with the studios and is poised to expand its jurisdiction into prime time TV shows typically covered under SAG contracts.) The 44,000 members who belong to both unions could play a key role in the strike referendum, given that most of them already endorsed the AFTRA contract, which is virtually identical to the one the studios are offering SAG.

While some prominent actors, including Rob Morrow and former SAG President Ed Asner, have declared their support behind the union leadership, other household names have openly challenged holding a strike authorization during the worst recession in decades.

"We do not believe in all good conscience now is the time to be putting people out of work," wrote wife-and-husband actors Rhea Perlman and Danny DeVito in a recent letter to SAG directors that was widely circulated. 

The sparring has extended into SAG's 71-member board as well. New York board member and former SAG President Richard Masur has blasted guild leaders for their handling of the failed federal mediation talks, which precipitated the strike authorization vote. SAG President Alan Rosenberg returned fire at critics, saying negotiators did everything they could to keep talks alive in the face of studio intransigence.

Meanwhile, studio executives aren't appearing fretful about the prospect of a strike -- as they were last year when the writers were ramping up to walk out -- because they're betting that SAG members will not vote for strike authorization given the recession, with its attendent widespread layoffs that is now washing over media companies.

Still, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which bargains on behalf of the studios, isn't taking anything for granted. The group has launched its own campaign targeting SAG members. The alliance took the unusual step this week of posting its final contract offer on its website and issued missives that attempt to portray SAG leaders as out of touch with economic reality.

While the economy will almost certainly be a factor in the vote, it's not clear how much of an effect it will have because of the divergent makeup of SAG's membership.

Working actors -- those who rely on work in film and TV for their primary source of income -- account for about 10% of the guild's membership. Instead, 90% of SAG's members earn less than $28,000 a year from acting work and -- putting aside the multiplier effect for a moment -- have less at stake if TV and film production shuts down in Hollywood.

Moreover, the faction that dominates the Screen Actors Guild, Membership First, has proven in the past that it can effectively mobilize support among extras and actors who only work occasionally.

"It's a unique feature of this particular union that there is a very large chunk of underemployed and unemployed and I think that could work in the union's favor," said David Smith, a labor economist at Pepperdine University. "Still, I think getting the strike authorization will be a tall order given the economic crisis. That will be on many actors' minds."

So, short of SAG and the studios reaching an 11th-hour bargain, strike authorization ballots will be mailed out to about 100,000 eligible SAG members (those who are paid-up on dues) at the end of the month. Balloting takes three weeks. A thumbs-up to strike requires approval from 3 out of 4 members who return ballots.

Still, even if the members vote to strike, the final decision on whether or not to walk out is ultimately left to the guild's 71-member board. Moderates who hold a slim majority on the board aren't expected to support a strike unless there is an overwhelming mandate from members. That makes the size of the "yes" vote critical.

But, paradoxically, a small turnout could actually work to the advantage of SAG's leaders. By simple math, the fewer members who vote, the easier it is for the guild to meet or exceed the 75% threshold.  SAG referendums typically draw a turnout of 25% to 30% -- and a recent survey conducted by the union drew 10%. Of them, nearly 90% supported seeking a better deal than what the studios proposed in their "final offer."

Given the high stakes involved, and heavy campaigning on both sides, turnout should be considerably higher this time around. But holding the referendum over the year-end holidays could mean a smaller turnout by working actors, who often get their mail sent to business managers, whose offices will be closed.

But sources close to the guild's negotiating committee say the delay is necessary to give the guild time to make its case to members and build support through a series of town hall meetings, mailings, e-mails from SAG leaders and videos on the union's website. SAG also has invited publicists and agents to attend a meeting at the union's headquarters on Wednesday.

Said one board member: "We only have one stab at getting this right and we didn't want to rush anything."

-- Richard Verrier

(Photo: Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman courtesy Peter Kramer / AP)

Comments

[stewart]

I was a member of SAG for 15 years, I never got a call for work from the union like other unions do when work comes up. I have watched as truck drivers and other craftspersons worked show after show, season after season and me and my peers did without as though it were them and not we who were the real ones entiled to earn a living when the Baird opined 'it's the play that is the thing'?
I watched at other times when non union individuals were chosen for the day and favors were filled and deals were cut as the rank and file were left out.
But nothing offended me more than the day when on my motorcycle I was hit by a car on PCH in Malibu and nearly killed with no health insurance what so ever because I could not afford to pay for it because in my chosen field I just didnt make enough. And after being in the ER on 3 different occaisions & laid out for months I was denied catastropphic benefits of $2800 as oultined?
I get it, let the deals happen, let the rest run to the front of the line, I take my leave and go with my dignity in tact as those around me fight in the muck.

[Tired of SAG]

The extras don't get residuals and the ones I've talked with just want to get back to work.
It is also a silly notion that working actors will miss this vote because of the holidays. I and other working actors can't wait to tell Rosenberg what he can do with his strike authorization.

[rick cramer]

Nothing beats rampant speculation instead of "reporting" when no one really knows what will happen is there?

[Christopher]

I can't think of a worse possible thing than for SAG to go on strike on the heels of the devastating writer's strike and the current economic meltdown. If they go on strike, they will be the most hated group of people in Los Angeles. I work in film as a "below-the-line guy" and a union member. I would picket against SAG and do everything I can to help the studios beat them.

[Laila]

I'm for unions ... but I hope that this doesn't affect the fans of all of these shows/movies. Last year when the screen writers went on strike, there were a few shows that were "exempt" while others had to play reruns.

I lost my show during that strike. Girlfriends ended up getting cancelled in the final season, and those of us who were fans of the show for years did not get our series finale. It is sooooooooo unfair when the fans are the ones who get hurt in the end.

[JohnRJ08]

An extremely small percentage of SAG's membership are actors who earn their living solely from acting. I'm talking less than 10%. Most actors and actresses have other jobs, or they're supported by their spouses. The vast majority of actors struggle hard to get enough work even to qualify for the Producers Health Plan. The actors who are working on a regular basis are earning incredible amounts of money and basically have zero health care costs because they are GIVEN the top end of the health care plan by their union.

SAG is like a microcosm of the United States, where the rich are getting richer, while the number of poor continues to increase disproportionately. Feature film actors who would have never accepted roles on television as recently as ten years ago, are seen on the tube regularly now because the money is so good and the parts are so easy to get.

Again, the middle class of SAG members shrinks and the upper class gets fatter and fatter. Right now, we are seeing wealthy, well-known actors going against the less fortunate members of their own union who want a better deal from producers and studios, and ensure fair payment for work that will appear in the new internet medium. It is a sad commentary on the greed and lack of compassion that has become so pervasive in the industry. Actors with Italian villas, and French chateaus, plus gated estates in Beverly Hills don't want a strike, and they're using all their power to discredit union leadership.

The goal of producers is to cut off the payment of residuals, which are the primary livelihood of the middle class of the union. At this point in time, actors are not being fairly compensated for their work which is re-run on the internet, even though the producers continue to get rich. If the public really knew what was going on with this so-called negotiation, they would probably join the call for a strike.

[JohnRJ08]

NOW is EXACTLY the time for a strike, when Hollywood producers and studios are already under economic pressures. The best time to strike is NOT when times are good, because there is less pressure to settle. The people cited in this article know that.

[RBBrittain]

SAG is screwed either way. If they lose, they look bad. But if they win, it will be with so few actors that most of the rest will become "permanent replacements" (hey, they're in another union, so you won't hear the four-letter S-word--you know, the one that pops up on a wound), and will end up decertifying SAG in favor of an expanded AFTRA. Either way, the actors get exactly what the other unions got.

[VanVan]

People keep forgetting that a vote for strike authorization does not mean that we will strike. It says it in this article, the producers are not afraid of SAG. They don't think we are going to strike so they are not budging in the negotiations. If you look back through the years of negotiations you can see that whenever SAG was the "nice guy" and gave them some help with the promise of us getting a more fair deal later, we have been screwed. The AMPTP are not gentlemen, they talk us into taking bad deals and then they never rectify the situation and we are forced to fight tooth and nail for a deal we already had years ago. We have the opportunity to get the base of what we deserve right off the bat. We need to show that we are united in this effort, otherwise they are just going to laugh at us and continue offering a horrible deal. No one wants to strike, but if we don't load the gun, they aren't going to feel the threat.

[Craig Richards]

For members of Screen Actors Guild and all those who make their living in the film, television and commercial industries, the only scenario that is worse than a SAG strike would be their acceptance of the current AMPTP proposal. The proposal does not advance the cause of a healthy and vibrant industry in which its participants are fairly compensated for the profits they help generate. The very best time to consider an industry's core values -- the essential elements that define the business -- is during financial hardship. Extravagances seem to pack on during the fat times, don't they.

The entertainment business has traditionally done well during economic downturns and the producers are in an excellent position to acknowledge SAG's jurisdiction and a very moderate residual schedule for new media. I completely understand their reluctance to give up any piece of the solid and growing profits from online distribution of content (especially when none of the other unions insisted on it). But the principle of fair compensation is just good business and results in a healthy industry. Just ask these same executives about their own compensation packages. Thank you, L.A. Times, for an opportunity to share my opinion.

Craig Richards, Actor/Director and long-time member of Screen Actors Guild

[None]

What are you SAG members talking about? They are giving you the same deal, that the other union's have. You people are just greedy, and don't care who you hurt. For being in SAG, I think a lot of people are misinformed that a strike will even do anything, except for finish crushing our economy.

[deuddersun]

When Union actors stop working with non-union crews, I'll be glad to give them my support. Until then...

deuddersun

IATSE
Local #52
NYC

[M'Shel]

It sickens me to hear of the Screen Actors Guild wanting to strike. Our economy is crumbling, thousands of people are losing their jobs and their homes and the SAG board wants a strike?!? Regardless of their reasons their timing couldn't be any worse. They are squabbling over internet and DVD residuals when the rest of the country is wondering how they're going to pay their bills, if they are going to lose their home, if they are going to lose their job, how they are going to provide for their children. What a "Let them eat cake" attitude toward the rest of the country.