SAG election likely won’t end contract stalemate soon

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

The balance of power on the national board of the Screen Actors Guild could be shifted after Thursday night, when the union announces results of a hotly contested board election.

Regardless of who wins, however, don’t expect to see any quick resolution to the stalemate with studios that has left actors working without a contract since June 30.

The election has pitted a group of dissidents in Hollywood against the more hard-line incumbent group known as Membership First, with celebrity supporters lining up on either side. It’s Tom Hanks vs. Martin Sheen.

Up for grabs are 11 national board seats in the powerful Hollywood division -- that’s where the majority of SAG’s members reside -- plus another 22 for those who serve as alternates.

Because the Membership First faction holds only a slim majority on the national board, the dissidents known as Unite for Strength need to win only about six of the 11 seats to gain a majority on the 71-member national board. They would achieve that by teaming up with board members in New York and the various regional branches who have been at odds with the current leadership.

The group has made no secret of its unhappiness with SAG Executive Director Doug Allen over his handling of the negotiations and relations with the smaller actors union the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. And with control of the national board, the dissidents could take steps to either replace Allen as chief negotiator or fire him outright.

Neither step would be easy and could expose the union...

...to a potential breach of contract lawsuit by Allen, while causing further infighting within Hollywood’s most discordant union. Buying out the remainder of Allen’s contract would be costly, however, given his paycheck of about $450,000 a year.

Even if the negotiating team changes, however, it’s not at all clear whether the studios will budge from their hard-line stance, including their refusal to recognize SAG’s jurisdiction over all shows created for the Web, regardless of budget -- a goal that has been widely shared among moderates and hardliners alike.

In any event, nothing will likely happen until the national board meets Oct. 18.

In the meantime, SAG and the studios can’t even agree on whether they are still negotiating.

A recent mailer to the guild’s 120,000 members described how SAG negotiators had been engaged in talks with employers, representatives on the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers and a core group of leaders from both organizations.

‘You will no doubt read spin suggesting that there is dead silence between our sides, but that is inaccurate. We are working through alternative channels to push for a fair deal for actors as soon as possible.’

The mailer went on to imply that SAG leaders were involved in back-channel talks similar to those that had been used earlier this year by writers and directors before they negotiated agreements. ‘Substantive progress is more likely in this environment as negotiators can talk more productively,’ the bulletin said.

But such statements have baffled studio executives who say no negotiations or bargaining — informal, formal, or otherwise — have occurred since they sputtered in early July. Studio sources close to the discussions, who asked not to be identified because the discussions (not negotiations, they emphasize) were confidential. Instead, they said, the communications have largely consisted of Allen calling studio executives and media moguls such as News Corp. President Peter Chernin and asking them what he could do to jump start negotiations.

The response: The studios might make some tweaks to their final offer, but only if SAG accepted the same framework for new media compensation that was already agreed to by writers, directors and actors who belong to AFTRA. The studios’ negotiator, Carol Lombardini, reiterated the same message in a meeting with Allen last month after he presented a series of proposals that were ‘nonstarters,’ says an insider.

‘We could not believe they were trying to spin this as informal talks,’ says one studio executive who asked not to be identified. ‘It was nothing of the sort.’

A spokesman for the AMPTP reiterated that ‘no informal negotiations regarding SAG’s TV/Theatrical contract have been going on, and for SAG’s negotiators to suggest otherwise is to intentionally mislead the membership.’

Of course, studios have a vested interest in discrediting SAG leaders who’ve lampooned their final offer as a raw deal for actors that threatens the future of residuals.

Allen dismissed the AMPTP claims as ‘silly and nonsense.’ He declined to discuss details of his conversations, saying they were confidential, but said he had spoken with several CEOs and representatives of the AMPTP since formal negotiations had halted in early July. While those conversations did not yield any breakthroughs, they helped each side identify their positions and priorities, Allen said.

‘The conversations have been serious and substantive,’ he said. ‘There’s more than one way to talk about these issues. You don’t have to have 50 people in a room.’

On Wednesday, Allen drew some encouragement from the results of an informal poll by the guild of its members. About 87% of the 10,000 members who completed response cards supported the guild’s effort to ‘fight’ for a better deal rather than accept the studios’ offer.

Allen was jubilant about the response, saying ‘it reflects the resolve we have seen from SAG members around the country throughout this negotiating process.’

Predictably, the AMPTP dismissed the results, saying the questions in the survey were ‘hopelessly one-sided’ and designed to ‘give SAG negotiators only the answer they wanted to hear.’

-- Richard Verrier