| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jul | Sep » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
- Animation Contract (6)
- Basic Cable (5)
- Commercials Contract (66)
- Editorial (9)
- Exhibit A - TV Theatrical (366)
- Interactive (16)
- Media Business (66)
- Miscellaneous Hate Mail and Threats (3)
- SAG Politics (233)
- SAG-AFTRA (185)
- Uncategorized (23)
- Union Politics (28)
- January 6, 2009: Commercials - The Next Great (Endangered) Frontier
- January 6, 2009: Everywhere you look...
- January 5, 2009: Nine Broadway Shows Close on Same Day
- January 5, 2009: WSJ: Ad Spending Expected to Drop 6.2% this year
- January 5, 2009: Commissioner Gordon Departs
- January 5, 2009: So, How's Your Sense of Humor This Morning?
- January 5, 2009: Allens Heading for RBDs in Search of Support
- January 4, 2009: Worth a Read, as Usual
- January 4, 2009: Does Bumping Doug Allen from TV-Theatrical Violates His Deal? - UPDATED
- January 4, 2009: Ordinarily We Wouldn't Post on this, but...
Now SAG’s Fighting with DGA
Variety today has an angry exchange between the DGA’s Michael Apted and SAG NED Doug Allen. It stems from a message sent by the DGA to its members in response to the Allens’ stream of criticism of the DGA new media deal that set the pattern for the WGA and AFTRA — a pattern the Allens have refused to accept, leading to the impasse in the TV-Theatrical talks.
In an article in the DGA Magazine, out today, DGA President Michael Apted says the non deritvative, low budget ,non professional new media exemption is the right thing to do to encourage the development of new product that will eventually result in the hiring of professional production staff, including actors.
Doug Allen’s response, according to Variety is “blistering.” “I think what really stands logic on its head is the idea that the way to organize union work is to encourage signatories to produce non-union under our contracts,” Allen said. “It is not appropriate to wait until new media reigns supreme to assert jurisdiction.”
August 20, 2008 at 11:10
“DGA President Michael Apted says the non deritvative, low budget ,non professional new media exemption is the right thing to do to encourage the development of new product that will eventually result in the hiring of professional production staff, including actors.”
for ANY guild to consciously allow non-union work by CONTRACT? is the dumbest godamm thing you can conceive of. the dga screwed the pooch, and apted’s letter gives a sense of how wounded he is by the correct criticism that the dga started this whole debacle.
the dga typically is MUCH more collusive and buddy-buddy with the amptp, and this time, they really blew it.
sag CANNOT sign a deal that, in violation of it’s core principals, UNANIMOUSLY re-affirmed by the whole of SAG , that no no-union work be allowed by sag contract and that actors get fairly paid for reuse
- allows by-contract non-union work! it is a self-inflicted wound that can put sag and middle class actors out of business.
as this has become clearer and clearer, that a percentage deal is what’s needed for ALL the guilds on new media, the finger pointing and blame has taken off.
apted’s letter clearly demonstrates his awareness and sensitivity that HE set the “template” that pressured the wga into a bad deal, and emboldened perennially weak kneed aftra to jump right into the same trap so it could compete directly with sag.
sag understands that the time to confront the amptp on a fair deal for new media in NOW - before they get precedent. if the dga hadn’t set the bar so low, by allowing non-union work by their OWN contract - NONE of the guilds would be in this mess.
this is the picture that is developing in the consciousness of the creative unions, like an old polaroid photograph, and as everybody watches it develop, the blame of sag is beginning to shift to where it belongs - the dga, for setting this killer precedent in the first place.
everyone would do well to put pressure on the amptp. it has been said on this blog: “everyone knows the guilds would never allow the taking away of residuals - there would be a unified strike!”
well, news flash: it has already been agreed to - by the dga, the wga and aftra. sag is the only union standing tough - despite withering, vicious and personal criticism - against this terrible precedent.
the amptp can and WILL exploit this non-union space to it’s financial advantage. the solution - a percentage deal fort ALL the guilds - is clear, transparent and fair - the amptp makes money? the guilds make x%, agreed on and negotiated by, each guild. the amptp doesn’t make money or loses money? the amptp has NO FIXED OBLIGATION TO ANY OF THE GUILDS.
THAT’S the way to “build” new media while mutually protecting the producers and the creative guilds. the fact that the amptp refuses to consider it speaks volumes about their true intent: to muscle the creative guilds out of as much money in the emerging new media market as possible, which will make the vhs/dvd losses look like a tip, in the next three decades.
so, let’s start putting pressure where it belongs - on the amptp, and start putting responsibility (rather than juvenile “blame”) also where it belongs - on the dga for being the first to accept, and therefore establish, this ‘template.”
August 20, 2008 at 12:53
Looks like T-Rex has yet another moniker. Including his annoying habit of lifting his posts from stinky and copying them here.
August 20, 2008 at 13:23
I still see no difference between striking now and striking in 3 years. What difference does setting a precedent make when dealing with a strike? Precedents effect negotiating without a strike.
August 20, 2008 at 13:39
Well, Mr. Fred, you’re entitled to your opinion.
But you have badly misread the situation and Michael Apted’s comments.
For your scenario to work, we would have to believe that the AMPTP intends to make all production in the future under low budget conditions. With no stars, no names and no bankability by anyone. Do you seriously believe that we’re about to enter an age where people pay 30 bucks for a DVD of the dog that can ride a skateboard?
If you actually read the contract terms and not just the MF talking points about them, you’ll see that percentage points do become part of the equation. They’re not in the first round due to promotional periods and due to all sides agreeing to see where the business is going first.
You have also badly misunderstood what happened during the WGA strike, so I’ll say it again: The WGA found themselves on the picket lines in January with no hope of any reconciliation coming anytime in sight. They were unable to motivate the AMPTP back to the table and were reduced to publicity moves like shutting down the Golden Globes (which picket SAG correctly upheld, thus ending that show for the year) and to more inexplicable ones like trying to get the city of LA to deny filming permits to the majors. They were also facing a situation where their membership was about to begin losing their medical coverage - a consequence they hadn’t been warned about before going out on the picket lines. At this time, after waiting over 2 months to begin their negotiations out of respect for the WGA, the DGA finally stepped in and began talking to the AMPTP.
The WGA wasn’t pressured by the DGA. Rather, it was given a way out of the strike that allowed its leadership to save face in a small way while conceding that the rest of the goals were not achievable at this time. Some hardliners in the WGA wanted to stay out on strike, but the overwhelming majority of members voted to end the strike - not because the DGA told them to do so but because they felt this was the best deal they could get, and that an additional five months of pickets would yield fairly little in return.
AFTRA was not “emboldened” by the DGA - they were angered by the conflicts with Membership First, and clearly decided they could not negotiate with them at the same time. The reasons for that have been thrown back and forth in here and really have their basis in the anymosity between the two groups, not in the DGA finding a way to negotiate a contract.
It’s certainly clear that Membership First feels that “the time to confront the amptp on a fair deal for new media is NOW”, but I don’t know that the rest of SAG feels that way. We’ll know more when the ballots are in.
I stand by my statement that the guilds would all strike if the AMPTP were to try to abolish residuals. This contract doesn’t do that, despite the apocalyptic musings of the MF supporters. It is not a “terrible precedent”, but it does provide room for all the guilds to revisit this area on the next go-round of negotiations.
As for your conclusion, how do you propose to “start putting pressure” on the AMPTP? With the threat of a strike? And how will you do that without getting that 75% in the vote, which hasn’t even been called for to this point?
If you want to find responsibility for the current situation, you need look no farther than the current SAG leadership, which expected to have full momentum for a strike on their side, and then never changed their strategy when this fell through. If you wanted a successful picket campaign, it would have helped to not have the WGA go on a 100 day strike in the middle of the last TV season. It would have helped for your scenario if the WGA had then stayed on strike rather than sign a deal fairly close to that which was on the table before they walked out. And it would have helped if Membership First hadn’t squandered a month’s time and at least 100K of the members’ funds trying to get AFTRA’s contract voted down.
Recriminations toward the DGA will not suddenly get the AMPTP to change their position, particularly given the way that Membership First has handled the negotiations. What is needed now is for rational people to think carefully about what can be accomplished at this time. If the solution is just to throw a tantrum and say “Well, WE won’t be the ones that caved!”, then that’s an unfortunate choice that simply prolongs the current impasse and keeps the middle class members of this guild working for last year’s wages.
August 20, 2008 at 15:02
Mr. Fred, T rex or any other anonymous MF spokeshole that strut and fret your hour upon the stage and then is heard to echo ad infinitum: you spin a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
If, as you seem to think, SAG is the only labor organization in town that ‘gets it,’ then why haven’t they ever led the pack?
It’s easier to moan and bitch and blame others.
Fact is the DGA prepared for their negotiations for over a year, spending a considerable amount of money on outside research firms to get a clearer understanding of existing delivery systems and those on the horizon.
What was it? Two or three months before the expiration of the SAG contract when the Allens, receiving pressure from celebrity SAG talent, pushed back by saying they needed to meet with the membership to find out what the issues were? Who are you all kidding!? Did anyone in the MF ranks stop to realize that this game is for keeps? Did they seriously expect to go in and win with a child’s game of chicken?
The WGA didn’t get forced into anything by the DGA. Instead, they were in the midst of a debacle of their own making. Verone stated early on that his negotiating style was to wait for the other guy to blink. Sadly, the Allens seemed to think brinkmanship was the way to go, too. Well, it is, if what you really want to gain is a strike. Say! Wasn’t Rosenberg overheard lamenting that he wouldn’t get “his strike?” Then it seems he chose the correct path. Damn the torpedoes!
So who is ‘Mr. Fred,’ to engage in chest thumping and blame assigning to come down from on high and tell us all how it’s done? Does he drink from the same internet font of knowledge as Justine “Scumbag Union” Batemen?
The DGA went in early, well prepared and calm and crafted a good deal.
August 20, 2008 at 15:15
kevin:
follow your own logic - bad deals, starting with dga, then, sag only guild left standing, right?
so, why is it therefore expected sag will pull a rabbit out of the hat?
they’re stuck with the hand they’ve been dealt, by the amptp, dga, wga and aftra, in that order.
the only thing they can do is get a vote of confidence from the membership, then threaten to strike.
that’ll take until at least mid-october. vote announced sept. 18th, send out a strike authorzation ballot say, next day? at least mid-october, probably nov. 1.
you want to put pressure on somebody?
how about:
1. the amptp
2. dga, wga and aftra.
the amptp offered the give away new media/shit deal, ergo, they suck.
the dga, wga and aftra took the give away new media/shit deal, ergo they suck.
why is anybody mad at sag for being the only union with the brains god gave them to understand you don’t agree to non-union work in YOUR OWN CONTRACT?
August 20, 2008 at 16:48
The text of the letter is here:
http://digitalmedialaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-media-jurisdiction-letter-from-dga.html
It’s worth reading. Of course, regardless of how cogent the reasoning, it’s unlikely to persuade the hard liners.
VG
August 20, 2008 at 18:32
lee blaine:
who are you and why are you arguing the patently absurd logic you’re using? the dga went in, screwed up the wga (ask a writer) then, for all their “research” agreed to deal allowing non-union work. this is the definition of dumb. this weakens the wga, they agree, aftra does what aftra does, sucking up to the suits, they get the same deal. what you need to understand lee blaine is: it’s a bad deal. no chest thumping here. just the cold hard facts. but this site is so wrapped up in its “global warning is membership first’s fault” view of , not only the business, but the world, you can’t see the forest for the trees. you are so consumed by anger at mf, you’ll defend anything and anybody, as long as you can continue to blame mf for something. anything. it’s your oxygen.
brian mccabe has at least admitted that if the suits renege on their sunset clause hoo-hah, that all the guilds will have to strike. that’s progress from a NEGOTIATOR. not an a.d., not a comedian, but someone who has made deals.
all I’m saying is, I’M taking the view the amptp is not to be trusted with something so vital to the fiscal health of sag and to actors ability to make a living. I do not believe stopping them now will be any easier or harder than stopping them 3 years from now.
they just have to be stopped. and, apparently it has come down to sag. if the membership gives the board the authority to strike, they will at least have a shot at the amptp taking a deep breath - like the seconds proceeding “lets go” before an invasion - and reconsider the damage.
one wonders if they will, behind closed doors say, “well, people say (kevin) if we take residuals away - ALL the guilds will strike, and, we all know we’re not agreeing to a percentage deal exactly because we want to take residuals away, so, gentleman, I guess we reconsider now, or, in 3 years, when they’ll all go out. why not get it over now? I mean, don’t let this out of this room, but, it is actually fair when you think about it.”
–
Ed. Note: Tedesco/Mr. Fred/trumped-up/jadams/little joe/Yuseff99/Tangerine/T-Rex/land-o-lakes - Please pick a single identity for your posts on this system. We don’t care which one…but just one, please.
August 20, 2008 at 18:52
“The DGA went in early, well prepared and calm and crafted a good deal.”
As did AFTRA.
August 20, 2008 at 22:42
Alright, now I’m sold that “Mr. Fred” is possibly the same person as “little joe” who may in fact be the same person as “T-rex/Wakely/Condor”. The entire post by “trumped-up” appeared on Deadline Hollywood under the Mr. Fred byline. This is beginning to get ridiculous.
And let me be clear. I don’t have a problem with anyone posting anonymously. For everyone working below the line, it’s a much safer approach toward keeping your career going rather than getting the label of “difficult”. But there’s a difference between posting with an anonymous name and posting repeatedly under different names on the same forum. That’s a form of trolling I don’t think I’ve seen before. Or perhaps I did and got fooled. Either way, it’s specious.
“Mr. Fred”, whoever you are, even if you are the T-rex multiple entity, you need to really think about these issues and try to learn from what has been happening rather than submitting an uninformed reaction. Your entire post as “trumped-up” shows a willingness to blame everyone else in this industry for the situation Membership First has found itself and SAG. In legal terms, this would be called going for “proximate cause”, as I recall - where you get in an accident with someone else and then blame them entirely for the problem because “if not but for the other guy…” And that simply doesn’t hold up - in court or here. You seem to be convinced that Membership First will get a huge mandate from the vote and then get the strike authorization you want. (And then presumably launch the huge strike you clearly want to see happen.) We’ll really have to see whether the membership of SAG is ready to vote for the doomsday scenario like that. I doubt it, but we’ll all know once the ballots are in. You never know. Maybe if enough people come out of the woodwork for it, you will really get your strike.
But even in that event, you’re still going to be looking at the same deal currently on the table. If anything, the move will simply accelerate the move of shows out of Hollywood and up to Canada or off to Australia. And while the picket lines continue (or not), the middle class actors, stand-ins and background artists I know will be working for last year’s wages, if at all. And this time, there’s nobody to make a deal that would allow Membership First to save face. Meaning an ugly capitulation like the WGA had in 1985. Do you seriously want to see something like that happen just to prove the toughness of Membership First?
Tedesco, that was a nice try, the casual dismissal of 18 months of twin research groups working for the DGA to compile the most accurate picture of internet and new media for their negotiations. You are of course incorrect about the research. It is quite real, and it was shared with the WGA and SAG. The WGA chose to ignore it until they realized they had no leverage left unless they stayed on strike for a combined total of at least 8 months before being joined on the lines by SAG. And Membership First has chosen to scoff at it, and show its own research - namely the results of a quick google search of newspaper headlines about new media deals this year.
Like the other MF supporters, you seem to be fomenting for a strike. Your assumption that the AMPTP will blink first is not informed by the history of these things. Do you seriously expect anyone in Hollywood to believe that SAG calling for the vote will result in the AMPTP “taking a deep breath”? And let’s say the vote comes in not with the minimum of 75% but rather the needed 90% to show the other side that you’re serious and united. You think that means the AMPTP backs down and says “Shucks, guys, we’ll give you everytyhing. Sorry about that.” Really? How about a year’s worth of imported dramatic shows from outside the country (CBS mused about using some English programming earlier this year)? How about another big round of reality programming? (NBC did great with, God help us, American Gladiators…) How about 6 more months of everyone out of work while the MF leadership continues to blame everyone else for their woes? I seriously doubt the SAG membership will go for that idea, not over a contract that contains internet jurisdiction and residuals and allows room for reevaluation in the coming cycles.
If the AMPTP actually called for the end of residuals, like they initially tried with the “profit first” gambit with the WGA, you’d see a justified industrywide strike. But asking for a strike over this is not helpful for the SAG membership so much as it gives Membership First cover for not achieving the goals they announced they would. And yes, the AMPTP is rubbing MF’s nose in this contract. Did you expect otherwise after the behavior of MF over the last year? This is part of the reason why many SAG members are choosing to look to other candidates who aren’t perhaps so polarized and enraged as MF and its supporters apparently are.
August 21, 2008 at 05:10
If the negotiating committee unanimously put forward a strike resolution, I would vote for it - even though I think that would be a huge mistake. You cannot cut the nuts off a stallion you’ve already mounted. I would further advocate that AFTRA implement a paperwork slowdown for any new shows trying to use the new AFTRA contract to give SAG some breathing room and brotherly suppport. BUT…
No strike will win if the economy worsens. Read the headlines….
Two major contracts cannot be struck at the same time. You have to put one contract to bed now.
The projected deficit must be addressed by expense cuts to create a credible strike profile.
Let’s hope todays board meeting addresses some of this, rather than a “whuppin” for those evil NY Board members.
August 21, 2008 at 06:18
A more realistic timetable for a strike vote would involve balloting some time in November and results in December. Great, just in time for Christmas.
But unless there is a sea change in opinion of some kind, there is no chance that 75%, much less 90%, of SAG members will vote to strike. Too many of them have been alienated by the current leadership (including (a) New York, (b) RBD, (c) dual-card AFTRA members, and (d) a significant portion of the Hollywood membership). Grooming members for a strike vote takes time and a consistent message, well-delivered … as the WGA carried out in 2007. SAG is not there. SAG is nowhere near being there. In fact, SAG’s official message is, and continues to be, “We aren’t planning to strike.”
SAG would need some kind of major event that would piss everyone off — such as a formal industry lockout — to galvanize the troops into fury. The AMPTP is smart enough not to hand SAG that kind of opening. The current OJ-Simpson-slow-speed-chase can seemingly go on forever. I can recall situations in other industries where the workers went without a contract for years on end.
So, I simply don’t see a strike authorization coming any time soon, regardless of the election outcome. Too many people remember 2000. Too many people are fed up with the current leadership, and even if the board majority changes, the very need to call a strike vote will still be associated with the actions of MF.
But let’s assume a strike is authorized. Will that change the AMPTP’s mind in some significant fashion? Doubtful. By the time a strike was actually called, the other agreements would have been in place for 9 months to a year. The New Media “framework” would be operating.
So, an actual strike would be needed. Starting in, say, March, after a couple of months of further fruitless “negotiation.” Now, business would already have slowed to a crawl when the strike authorization passed. Pilot season, mortally wounded by the writers’ strike, would end completely. Feature film production would already have tailed off, but the studios have more product than they need now (see, e.g., moving Harry Potter to 2009). Scripted television would stop, but there would already be a significant number of episodes in the can by this time, and it would be rerun time again. Shades of 2007.
And so the industry would be shut down, for an indefinite length of time. Production would move overseas. Non-union work would mushroom. Unscripted programs on TV, indie films in the theaters. And lots of people out of work.
And then, when it seemed like deadlock was going to last forever, a A-list talent would cross the picket line in protest of the lunacy. This would begin a trickle that would become a flood. Others would go fi-core. People would say to themselves, I got into this because I want to act. I want to work. I don’t want to walk picket lines because some furstrated activists with nothing better to do have maneuvered SAG into this corner. So the hell with them. The hell with Kent McCord. The hell with David Jolliffe. The hell with Alan Rosenberg. I’m going to work.
And that would be the end.
VG
August 21, 2008 at 06:40
Isn’t it just sad that in this whole sickening scenario, MF cannot admit doing anything wrong? I am certain I have missed some things, but just for the sake of my memory, I will write out a portion of the laundry list.
1. Hired Doug Allen as NED, a thoroughly inexperienced and unsophisticated bargainer outside of the artificial cocoon of the NFLPA, who has thus far proven he has no conception of the nuances of contract negotiation.
2. Fired Greg Hessinger who is now on the other side of the bargaining table for the Commercial negotiation.
3. Tried to steal a show under AFTRA jurisdiction to move it under SAG jurisdiction. This eventually resulted in AFTRA coming to the eminently sensible conclusion they could not trust SAG, MF, Doug Allen and Alan Rosenberg as equal partners in the TV/Theatrical negotiation and withdrew from the CBA.
4. Squandered the opportunity to negotiate a deal before AFTRA, who graciously allowed SAG and AMPTP to extend talks twice before eventually stepping in and striking a deal in a calm, prepared and professional manner.
5. Spent a large amount of membership money on a “Defeat the AFTRA Contract” campaign, claiming it was not anti-AFTRA, but anti-contract. This instead of concentrating on trying to make some more modest gains out of the AMPTP on issues personally important to the middle class working actor.
6. Lost the campaign against AFTRA contract, failed to make a deal with AMPTP, lied openly about the situation to the membership, blamed AFTRA for taking food out of the mouths of actors, and now is generally stonewalling until the results of the next SAG National Board Election.
So you tell me folks…as a proud member of a “scumbag” union (AFTRA)…how should I feel about SAG? Please tell me that the inmates aren’t running the asylum over there. Because I am offended, personally insulted and frankly astonished that people of the ilk of Little Joe are the ones who are bloviating and publishing their vile, hateful screed anywhere they can get the bandwidth. I never crossed a picket line, accepted struck work and UNTIL this whole childish fiasco…always stood with my sister union.
Doug Allen goes after DGA President Michael Apted because he has no argument. He is an empty suit who is chained to the MF Hollywood Board. The only mystery left for me to unravel is whether Mr. Allen is really this incompetent or is he forced to use tactics he doesn’t agree with under the threat of losing his job.
SAG used to be the 800 lb gorilla, now it is the 3 lb Chihuahua. That is the tragedy of this whole thing.
…and finally, how dare these people go after Mike Farrell…as classy a man as I have ever had the good fortune of meeting in my life with their Robespierre, Committee for Public Safety, justifying the use of their terror tactics for the common good, nonsense?
JC
August 21, 2008 at 08:04
these people go after anyone who has a sane, competent argument behind their opinions. I’ve watched certain members of MF viciously attack the most competent in our union — from Masur to Gilbert to Cromwell to even Rosenberg(remember when he wasn’t hardline enough for a certain faction) to regular working members of SAG who don’t agree with them. Funny that you brought up Robespierre, as I was thinking about the French rev and how it turned in on itself in another post –
August 21, 2008 at 09:46
jcisneros
it’s me again. the guy with the lousy grammar who isn’t worth reading.
1) doug allen’s hiring was approved by the ENTIRE SAG BOARD. UNANIMOUSLY.
2) greg hessinger hired people without board approval and wouldn’t return board member’s phone calls.
honestly, if U4S gained control of the board and they hired someone who behaved that way, what do think they would do? they would fire him.
3,4,5,6) look, i know no matter what arguments are made , no matter what evidence is presented, you will always defend AFTRA to the end. great.
but AFTRA is guilty of all of the things you’re blaming on the current SAG leadership.
isn’t it sad that AFTRA cannot admit it has done anything wrong?
the people who don’t agree with your version of the situation are not going to shrivel up and go away.
have masur and farrell and aquino and cromwell gone away? no.
they’re still around, doing their thing.
the revenge factor in you guys is amazing.
the bitter hatred and resentment some of you folks have for MF,
(or for that matter, anyone who disagrees with YOU),
will come back to bite you in the ass.
August 21, 2008 at 09:53
michael apted’s letter, my responses, jonathan handel’s reaction, my responses:
I’m in sag/aftra/dga aea
26 years in
I’ve written and directed 2 indies, both under a million bucks. one non-union, one-union.
——————————————
However, we built into our agreement a very important protection – if a signatory company on a new media production employs a professional as director or in any other DGA category, regardless of the budget level – that production is covered by the Guild agreement.
———————————————–
yes. true. but the whole point of these very high “floors”? is EXACTLY to give the amptp plenty of wiggle room NOT to use “covered performers.” see, LOGIC dictates this as the REASON the producers have structured it this way.
————————————————–
And despite all the grandiose talk about the coming bonanza, new media hasn’t yet started raining money. The truth is that for new media production to realize its undeniably vast potential – and create all those jobs we want our members to have – it must be given the room to evolve and grow.
—————————————————–
the naivete from a seasoned professional is breathtaking. just insert “vhs/dvd” for new media in this paragraph. it’s actually sad.
——————————————————-
What would happen if the unions were to demand and be given jurisdiction over all new media production without exception? The most likely scenario is that it would become structurally and economically unfeasible for AMPTP members to make low-budget experimental shows for the Internet.
——————————————————
the amptp is GOING to be making new media product. BANK ON IT. THEY ALREADY ARE. is he arguing they would forgo new media if the creative had held the line on a percentage deal, which would give the producers the “flexibility” to “experiment” without FIXED OBLIGATIONS to the creative guilds if the projects tank? of course not. the amptp is ALREADY in the new media business. the question is simply, under what kind of a contract would the creative unions be involved? apted included a huge a non-union space, and he chose it first - thereby creating the “template”
_________________________________
Even if the studios were persuaded to make low-budget new media production under union jurisdiction, this could result in another problem. Many of those untested novices would be required to pay DGA initiation fees and dues, potentially forcing the DGA to accept a large number of new members who have been hired to do one experimental project and might never direct again. Frankly, it would not be fair to charge them initiation fees and dues (which they probably couldn’t afford in any case).
__________________________________
this is a straw man. the “novices” could easily be dealt with in terms of financially prohibitive entry fees to the dga. this is nonsense.
—————————————————
So we have a choice. We can insist on having jurisdiction on paper over everything, and thereby run the risk that the area develops in a largely non-union context. Or we can carve out an exception that will allow experimentation, innovation and growth at the lowest budget levels, while simultaneously securing jurisdiction over all professional-level productions.
—————————————————
mr. apted. the floors are exponentially higher than the current cost of content. this creates wiggle room the amptp can exploit in a myriad of ways to avoid unions, to avoid residuals. it is a recipe for disaster.
_________________________________
This approach has been successful before. With very low-budget feature films, we designed an innovative, flexible jurisdictional carve-out that allowed the new medium to develop in a way that ensured that once it was ready for professionals, those professionals would be our members.
__________________________________
doug allen makes the same argument for SAG, but without the non-union space. he says “we can and will work it out with the producers. we can be ‘flexible’ but - we cannot agree by contract - against our core principals - to a huge non-union space. “
it is counter-intuitive, to put it kindly, for a union to sign a contract that ALLOWS non-union workers to come in and compete against its OWN MEMBERS.
___________________________________________
jonathan handel’s (anti-mf anti-sg) take on apted’s letter:
———————————————————————-
Two points worth adding. First, the dollar thresholds are high — much higher than almost all new media production today ($2,000 - $5,000 per minute is typical, with occasional productions at $10,000 per minute). I’d prefer to see them lower, and this is (in my view) an unfortunate compromise that the DGA made.
———————————————————————-
“unfortunate.” that’s one word to describe it. dumb. naive. dangerous. ill-advised. irresponsible. that’s a few others.
from first dollar and first airing, with a percentage deal that covers both the guilds and the producers. THAT’S the answer.
——————————————————————–
The proposed SAG deal is reportedly similar to the AFTRA deal, and thus presumably includes this language. Thus, if a show uses a SAG, AFTRA or Equity member with two TV or movie credits or any of the other listed credits, then it’s covered, even if the budget is below the thresholds.
———————————————————————–
the incentive for producers to use “covered” performers in a “non-union” space they have meticulously carved out and put over as a fair “compromise” with 3 of the 4 unions, is zero. the WHOLE POINT is to use non-union people, or, they would have agreed to a percentage deal.
–
Ed. Response - Fred, thanks for posting. A question - even if the AMPTP were to reverse itself and cave in on non derivative new media, and sign an all-SAG-all-union contract (we know, not going to happen, but let’s say it did)… what’s to stop them from creating non union/not AMPTP subsidiaries and doing their production through those non union subs? The NLRB sure isn’t going to stop them, they’ve already decided that is perfectly OK. So where would that leave us? Even more unemployed than ever is our best guess. Do you disagree?
August 21, 2008 at 10:26
Ed - Where there’s a will, there’s a way…Just a few weeks ago a recording studio sent me spots for a national campaign and asked me to audition for the vo. The non-union campaign was for a dotcom cutout of a well-known signatory offering an ancillary service. I didn’t even answer them.
August 21, 2008 at 10:29
Well, there’s your evidence of Mr. Fred and T-rex being the same person. He just couldn’t stay away from the “I’ve directed movies. I know what I’m talking about” meme. But don’t ask him questions about those movies, he’s bashful that way.
And Tedesco took my statement completely out of context and used it to support his argument. Makes you wonder about the legitimacy of his other sources, doesn’t it? Cause i don’t think I’ve been shy in saying where I stand.
A few posts back, MF was all up in arms about how U4S wouldn’t debate them. At the same time, they were sure they would “kick their ass” in a debate. But has anyone noticed that when you ask them simple questions like “what is a middle class actor?” no answer is put forth? I know all the talking points. We’ve all heard them day in and day out. No one needs to post them anymore. They are unconvincing at this stage to either side.
August 21, 2008 at 12:38
what’s middle class actor? no one wants to answer that? well, I have no problem trying. I’d say it’s very similar to a “middle class american” with all the depth and breadth inherent therein - financially, emotionally, politically, socially, religion, race, color, old, young, experienced, inexperienced…
and, again, wouldn’t you think the people you support would be DYING to get up on a stage, given the supposed rightness and logic of your cause, and, while being taped so ALL sag actors could see it or read the transcript, debate?
given the ferocity of your opinions and beliefs, it is very, very hard to conclude anything other than you, in fact, fear you DON’T have the facts on your side, that your arguments would be easily countered and your credibility ruined.
how else to explain ned vaughn’s or amy brenemanns refusal to debate? and please don’ tell me “because they’re winning.” that’s a complete cop-out. if the goal is to get you message out, to convince the full membership of the righteousness of your cause, how can U4S’s refusal to debate be seen any other way?
come on - debate! let’s hear it! you’ll be assured of a fair anf open forum. you can pick a moderator. let mf pick one. both sides happy. clear rules so there’s no shouting or audience booing or cheering.
come on guys. talk to you peeps. let’s debate already. out in the light of day. not on a web site routed through germany.
August 21, 2008 at 12:41
ed:
as per you question - my response is: one REALLY IMPORTANT THING at a time. FIRST: no non-union work agreed to by the creative guilds in their OWN CONTRACTS. THEN, we can discuss your point.
August 21, 2008 at 13:33
And does that apply to extras? Are we willing to strike to eliminate all non-union extras on SAG sets?
August 21, 2008 at 14:34
Look Harry,
I am going to make this crystal clear to you. When my parent union screws up, they hear about it. I participate in my union. I can assure you that on the times I have disagreed with Ron Morgan and Bill Thomas, I have expressed it to them rationally and calmly, and they have listened to me…and with respect.
Yes, I know the board hired Doug Allen unanimously, alas…not a lot of due diligence was done on the pick or else a labor union wouldn’t have hired a scab to represent it. Where were the conversations in reference to Mr. Allen’s experience in an open industry versus the very closed industry NFLPA is? I could waste your time with tons of due diligence I picked up in the public domain regarding Mr. Allen.
The signs were there and you didn’t need a slide rule to calculate just where his inexperience would lead SAG. I don’t recall saying that MF were the only votes, but based upon how the railroad is run over there right now, just how much say does New York and the rest of the SAG membership OUTSIDE of Hollywood have anyway? That is what is known as a rhetorical question, and the answer to it is: Not much if any.
If indeed Hessinger hired people without board approval and failed to return phone calls then his dismissal was warranted.
The evidence for my points 3,4,5 and 6 are in the public domain. You don’t need to do much research to find out the truth of those statements, but just to be kind I will call point 3 a misunderstanding that could have been worked out in retrospect.
Point 4 is the complete truth. SAG negotiated before AFTRA and both the AMPTP and SAG requested 2 extensions in the hopes of getting a contract. AFTRA agreed to those extensions before the negotiations were shut down and AFTRA came to the table.
Point 5. Was it my imagination? Did I not see the protests at 5757 with my own eyes, did I not at least see copies of e-mails from SAG telling dual card holders NOT TO VOTE for the AFTRA TV/Theatrical? The Robo-Calls? Was all of that imaginary? I imagine in our free market society that campaign cost a lot of money…money that came out of the pockets of dues paying members.
Point 6. In my wrapup point I used information freely available in the public domain. I did not need to be a fly on the wall in some secret SAG confab to know this stuff.
and finally…revenge?
All I want is a contract and a settlement between SAG and AMPTP. One that is reasonably favorable to actors. I want SAG and AFTRA to negotiate together again and I hope that ONE DAY we can merge together and use the strength of our numbers to get more leverage at the bargaining table. That would be to the benefit of all entertainers who perform in front of the camera.
I want alleged adults to act like adults, not like spoiled children whose public arrogance and certitude is giving our employers the excuse to send more work out of town, make more reality shows, rely less on scripted shows…and like Nero…while we fiddle, Rome burns.
Strikes are important, having the justification and LEVERAGE to strike is the key to making a strike threat worth our time and effort. SAG had the opportunity to make some additional gains to the AFTRA contract, if only your negotiating committee had actually sat down and concentrated on those gains instead of…this…hogwash.
In the final analysis this “action” is no better than when SAG broke the 12C.
Respects,
JC
August 21, 2008 at 15:17
“what’s middle class actor? no one wants to answer that? well, I have no problem trying. I’d say it’s very similar to a “middle class american” with all the depth and breadth inherent therein - financially, emotionally, politically, socially, religion, race, color, old, young, experienced, inexperienced…”
What a wonderful non-answer! Why everybody, I say, everybody can be a middle class actor! You sir, over there, you’re proud to be an American, right? Well, goshdarnit if that don’t make you a middle class actor! Ma’am, is that apple pie? Do I see apple pie in your hands? God, that just makes me think of America and how proud I am to be a middle class actor.
Is this the kind of debate tactics you plan on using? No wonder they don’t want to. And Mr. Cooper, I be a huckleberry if you get an answer to your question.
August 21, 2008 at 15:38
And let’s not forget to eliminate all student films. Can’t have SAG actors in those too. Goes against their new resolution.
August 21, 2008 at 19:45
so, mccabe, it’s a “non-answer?” what do you want? “it’s an actor who makes between x and y amount of dollars in a year?”
“middle class actors” go in and out of any specific criteria from year to year. one year good? next year bad. next year so-so. next 3 years awful. next year good. etc.
“stars” are not middle class actors.
actors who have made “fuck you money” but are not movie stars, are not middle class actors - say, earl holliman, who I did a play with off-broadway in 1989, and who played “mr. wilson” the unseen neighbor on “home improvement” from the first to the last episode, made “fuck you money” - he told me so. he’s since passed away. but, there are many, many actors, who have amassed “fuck you money” from a gig as a regular on a tv show. george wendt. tom posten (also deceased) traci gold. justine bateman (relax) noah wyle. melissa gilbert. michael richards (possibly will never get a good gig again, but, who cares? he’s got the fuck you money).
and there are a handful of character actors, who get consistent movie gigs - stephen tobolowsky comes to mind. richard jenkins. many others. they spend 20-25 years? then - boom! they’re hot as hell. movie. movie .movie. now it USED to be, those guys got fairly rich - fuck you money territory. NOW? now - a lot of them are being offered scale in movies. and a lot of them are instead looking for steady tv gigs, where, if you hook on as a regular? you’re still gonna make real money. again peter coyote fessed up to it, which took real courage.
me? I’ve had multiple hundred thousand years. and I’ve had 17 grand years. I don’t have fuck you money. I am definitely a middle class actor. but, I could get a gig tomorrow that bumps me back into contention.
but, what ALL middle class actors share? is an absolute need for the level of residuals sag provides now. without those residuals? a lot of those people will be forced to drop out.
if you’ve been in a bunch of movies and a bunch of tv, as I have, you are going to pull in real money residuals. when it’s early run syndication or cable of a series you were a regular on? it may be 75% of your income.
anyway, that’s a long, but accurate, I think, approximation of what a middle class actor is.
there are SO many supposed “names” who are, in fact, middle class actors. peter coyote fessed up to it. he said his work has dropped off 70 % in the last 10 years. believe me - he NEEDS those checks to pay his bills, keep his house, put his kids through college.
so you have to understand, this is why actors, whoever they support, if they make their living as ACTORS, are so freaked out by the non-union space in the sag contract. and they have every reason to be, they want to KNOW - not “be promised” not “we’ll revisit it” not “there’s a sunset clause” that WHATEVER happens in new media - whether it’s a cash cow in three years or ten? they are cut in for their fair share. they HAVE to have that assurance. directors? writers? not so much. actors? it’s a MUST.
August 21, 2008 at 19:45
“Qualified Performer”
BOTH of AFTRA’s recently concluded deals have new media numbers that reflect the DGA’s. But they also have something the DGA’s deal does NOT have, something only a performer’s contract could: “who is a qualified performer”. Qualified performers trigger coverage no matter what the budget numbers are.
Definition of who a qualified performer is is quite lengthy. It’s been posted many times. It was circulated during ratification. But SAG Hollywood NEVER mentions it. They instead harp on new media budget numbers that they insist will gut our contract and grow a non-union cancer we won’t be able to stop - a reason to not sign a deal.
That is just wrong. For all who’ve posted here, and for all who have taken the time to read any of it, know that the definition of a qualified performer will catch virtually anything that an even semi-professional performer would want to do under a union contract. And qualified performer does not depend upon you being a union member to get union coverage, if that is what you want. And it only takes ONE member of the entire cast to trigger this coverage. And producers must depend upon the ACTOR’s claim that they have this credit.
(And this insistance that, in its wake, every union production should create a residual is a bit silly. Residuals for student films? Experimental new media projects?? What are you talking about? But this does highlight the issue of useage and payment which is going to get a real airing in the upcoming Commercials Code negotiations. )
Read the “qualified performer” language and then post and tell me you think a yawning non union chasm is opening within this contract. It’s nonsense.
SAG Hollywood hasn’t closed this deal because they can not close deals. They can only object. Real bargaining means winning and loosing, which is something their militancy does not seem to allow. That leaves their militancy quite unfulfilling, doesn’t it?
August 22, 2008 at 03:45
Mr. Coyote is simply getting old - me too, and perhaps you as well. SAG puts out charts annually showing the distribution of audition opportuities to various age brackets. Quite simply put - once you pass 50, the opportunities graph is almost vertical. And it starts that slope for women 10 years earlier.
This distribution flies in the face of SAG’s discrimination principal - that our productions should mirror society at large - 40% of which is now over 50 - another “Core Principal” biting the dust.
As for not getting paid above scale - that is exactly what the commercial agents are saying - it’s very very hard for them to get guarantees anymore. Heck, 20 years ago perhaps a third of all actors auditioning had a guarantee, 2500 a cycle, 3500 a cycle, even 10 grand a cycle per spot. Ask your agent - it’s pretty rare now - an analogous situation to theatrical agent complaints.
And like all economics, that is supply and demand. They can make spots in Canada, make them non-union - whatever - and Joe Sixpack doesn’t notice and keeps on watching Ice Road Truckers and buying Miller beer. And he won’t notice if his series is made in Canada either.
And “names” are getting less pay because there are more “names” - again, supply and demand - just compare the number of new “names” who emerged in say 1970 with the number who emerge each year now. That’s star inflation, and it results in lower pay. Then the “stars” grab up lower rung work like tv spots they would never have done in the past - and we all move down the ladder.
Tell me, if agents for top models couldn’t get above a certain rate quote - would it help those models to form a union to set minimums? Union are to set floors, not ceilings - and if agents can’t juice a clients pay overscale, why do you imagine your union can? SAG will be lucky to get increases sufficient to account for the inflation our Bush government says we aren’t having.
August 22, 2008 at 11:26
Mr. Fred:
It’s still a vague answer, but it’s something I can work with. If you aren’t willing to classify “middle class” in a financial way, then howabout in a workload way? jobs a month? jobs a year? I leave it to you (should you choose to) to come up with.
But the rest of the anecdotal argument is interesting. It seems that you have a specific group of actors in mind (ie the Richard Jenkins of the world), but I get no sense of how big that group is. You use recognizable names in your argument but I can’t tell if that is just for simplicity or if that is a requirement for inclusion.
I get what YOUR concerns are, but how is anyone supposed to address a specific group’s needs without knowing what the group is.
The importance of residuals is not being questioned by anyone here. We all agree they are important. But New Media isn’t new. SAG has an agreement that ’s been around since 2002 for internet productions. So, there are two contracts that were negotiated (keeping in mind residuals were equally as important then) that didn’t have this crisis point. So, my question to you is, what is it about this contract negotation that leads you to believe this is the tipping point?
August 22, 2008 at 13:09
i will post as harry98.
mr. j. cisneros
respectfully, sir,
i realize that, as an AFTRA only member, the health of AFTRA is of vital importance to you. i understand.
my position is that the deal that AFTRA has ratified may be good for AFTRA,
but it is harmful to the well-being of actors.
unite for strength has said as much.
if keeping AFTRA healthy can only be done by reducing the circumstances of actors,
i cannot support AFTRA. and i’m a dual cardholder
i wish you and everyone else who disagrees with me health and prosperity.
no bullshit.
mr. mcCabe
the difference between 2002 and right now is that the technology has made leaps and bounds, and things are possible today that were primitive just 6 years ago.
goodbye.
August 22, 2008 at 15:25
harry98:
Such as? Episodes were streaming online 3 years ago. And are you contending that there will be no “over the air” broadcasts within the next 3 years? Or perhaps partial “over the air?” What are you figures for that and where can I find them? Do you know if online viewing is cannibalizing television viewing?
And I’m confused, are you Mr. Fred as well?
August 22, 2008 at 17:32
No, Harry98 is not Mr. Fred. Harry98 was salamander & hayes.
Mr. Fred is T-rex, Land-o-lakes, jadams, Condor, Mrs. Wakeley and I don’t know how many others.
I’m getting a headache.
Wait, that might be the point…
August 22, 2008 at 17:41
3 years ago, people who watched streaming episodes on the web, when they RARELY were available, needed seasickness pills. the web has transformed exponetialy. ask a tech geek. and they will tell you it will transform exponentially in the next three years.
August 22, 2008 at 18:20
You’re willing to go to war over this issue. Shouldn’t you have already asked the tech geeks? Shouldn’t you already have that answer? How many exponents? Oh, yeah, and any of those original questions you probably don’t have an answer for.
Membership First: Facts, we don’t need no stinkin’ facts.
August 22, 2008 at 21:10
mccabe.
sag DID ask the tech geeks. that’s why they’re holding out. see, one follows the other.
sure there will be tv and film. it’s not going to stop. it’s just going to be delivered digitally and will soon enough emanate from a web address.
instead of punching channel 7 (abc) into your remote, you’ll punch channel 7 (abc.com)
once the delivery is via the web? the web rules apply. and right now? the only union holding out for a fair deal on the web? is sag. led by mf.
August 23, 2008 at 03:55
What utter technical nonsense. Streamed films are garbage quality compared to BluRay or DVD or cable delivery. And it won’t change until the web is upgraded. I have two hi-speed systems, cable and DVD - fastest they have. Hell, we’re losing the US edge on the web now since it runs several times faster in Europe and Japan - there is where the new programs will come from - we will be the last modern country to go fiber optic to the door.
And further - surely our brilliant technical guest realizes that the younger generation spend MORE on video games than films. So how does our video game contract stack up, since in time it will replace half of all films.? I’d be more worried about that end of it, frankly, since it is here now, eating your lunch now…not some danger in the far future when tjhe cable company finally upgrades the wires. Hell, I’d be willing to bet the phone lines in Westwood are still split like they were thirty years ago, and fail regularly in the rain.
August 23, 2008 at 09:56
anonymous
you’d be well advised to watch peter chernin’s interview from two weeks ago with charlie rose.
he doesn’t agree with you.
August 23, 2008 at 13:09
Mr. Fred:
I’ve spoken to tech guys too. They estimate that the change over would happen after the year 2014 at the earliest. Did you know that they don’t make televisions with an internet port now? Sure, you can WiFi it, but anyone who’s done over the air WiFi knows how tricky that can be. So, that means you have to convince all those people who have recently bought pricey HD televisions to re-purchase new ones with an internet port. Then, you have to market it the viewers that instead of pushing a button on a remote, to log onto the web using your television, select the proper website, then choose to watch a show. All the while, upgrading the internet’s ability to transfer massive amounts of information that go into a HD television picture. The online HD being touted is crap. And then there are all those homes that sitll have analog televisions. All those older people who do not know how to work a VCR, let alone a DVR. So, not only will you have a group of people with an expensive HD television giving them picture quality of a low def television, you’ll have to educate a large group of people on how to use the new system.
All of that is going to happen in 3 years according to you.
Membership First: Believers that “The Matrix” isn’t just a movie!
August 23, 2008 at 18:01
I watched Chernin’s interview…and he also stated the failure to negotiate the TV/Film contract was due to SAG’s inner politics….Mr. Fred, carefull what you reference