November 30, 2008 by Editor.

Apparently expecting that the strike authorization vote will pass (we think that’s iffy at best) and that a strike will result, the Los Angeles Times is out with an article predicting that the strike won’t “cripple” television. The paper’s theory is that between the companies sending more shows to AFTRA and moving up shooting schedules on SAG series, the effects of a strike won’t be that big.

Here’s a snippet:

If it seems like AFTRA’s clout in prime time is growing, well, it is. And that’s because of the way TV shows have traditionally been apportioned between the two unions: SAG covers filmed projects; AFTRA, those on video. The unions have dual jurisdiction for material recorded digitally — and that’s where AFTRA is seeing a big upswing. In fact, the trend toward more AFTRA shows represents a return to the state of the industry before the 1980s, when expensive filmed shows such as “Hill Street Blues” began operating under SAG deals.

SAG still covers the big filmed shows such as “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.” But even there, the networks might not suffer as much as they did during the writers strike. Many shows began production earlier than usual last summer, so they have finished shooting a large number of episodes. One network source said some series have completed photography on 15 to 17 episodes and would probably be close to having finished a full-season order by the time any strike started.

None of this means the TV business would escape injury if an actors strike really did come to pass. On the contrary, production schedules for many filmed shows would be thrown into chaos once again, and the industry would suffer further ill-timed disruptions at a moment of heightened economic vulnerability.

But the writers strike meant crumbling ratings and truncated seasons for many shows. Fox’s “24″ ended up with a delay that will amount to an 18-month interval by its return in January. Compared with that kind of upheaval, viewers this time might hardly notice any difference. 

 Meanwhile, the Times is carrying another of AMPTP’s ads (here’s Variety’s article on the spin wars, including the ad). The latest AMPTP ad apparently is designed to knock down the concept of going around the AMPTP to the CEOs. The CEOs all signed the ad, which says the group is sticking by its “last, best and final” offer. 

Posted in Exhibit A - TV Theatrical | Print | 15 Comments »

November 30, 2008 by Editor.

Well known voice actress Keri Tombazian has advised her Member 2 Member list that she’ putting together a new website to address the upcoming strike authorization referendum on the TV-Theatrical contract. In a blow to the campaign, Tombazian says she is opposing the strike authorization. 

“I have received quite a bit of email asking for more information and analysis regarding the Strike Authorization Vote. I have been collecting information, reading several articles, talking to as many informed individuals as possible, and I have many thoughts on the subject. In fact, so much so, that I am building a website to address it all.

The short answer is, I am against the Strike Authorization. The details and information you should have to make an informed decision are being put together now. I will email you with a link as soon as it is up.”

Posted in Exhibit A - TV Theatrical | Print | 13 Comments »

November 27, 2008 by Editor.

Inspired, perhaps, by the AFTRA message, we started considering what we here at SAGWatch have to be thankful for. Certainly we’d include the members of both SAG and AFTRA who run for office, serve on committees, work through the W&W and negotiating issues - all as volunteers. Whether we agree about specific issues, whether or not we’re with them on slate selection, our lives are all better because they have stepped forward and are working on behalf of all of us. Theirs is volunteerism at its finest.

The staffs of both unions also genuinely care about the members for whom they work.  We may take issue with some of their decisions, but their service should be remembered with gratitude today.

We thank the readers who want to learn more about their unions - more than 200,000 visits to this site in its first five months, with more than 413,000 page views - both are numbers that surprised and inspire us.We thank the contributors whose articles and comments make this site a better place - especially VoiceGuy. We’d certainly include Wrath/pale rider/Balsawood/ Thomas Frank/Bobby66/Franklin Barr/Ted Simon/Mrs. Wakely/T-Rex, who, with 284 comments to date is far and away our most prolific writer, but who probably is wondering why his posts aren’t showing up lately (we’ve got 15 on hold in the moderation area currently). Hint: follow the rules. ONE identity per person.

Anyway, all of us at SAGWatch extend best wishes for a Happy Thanksgiving and a great holiday season to all of you.

Posted in Editorial | Print | 9 Comments »

November 26, 2008 by Editor.

We’ve already posted the messages from Alan Rosenberg today. The tone has been medium defensive, which is understandable considering the impasse over TV-Theatrical, and the sharp criticism of the Allens coming from practically every corner but Membership First.

Tonight we received a copy of an e-mail that went out today from the President and NED of that “other” union - AFTRA. The difference in tone  - well, judge for yourself. 

Dear National Board Members, Local Presidents and AFTRA Staff,

Thanksgiving is a time when we all reflect quietly on the things we have to be grateful for this year.

Very near the top of our lists are the staff of AFTRA and the AFTRA members who serve – both groups which have shown an incredible dedication to improving the lives of their colleagues – and who have persevered through some very tough times. Though the economy may be bleak and times may seem tough, your continuing drive is both a source of inspiration and a great gift to us all.

Whether local and national board members and staff, committee members or rank and file volunteers — the men and women who work so hard each day to make life a little better for their fellows — are a blessing for which we give thanks.

Please accept our gratitude for all you do in service to AFTRA members, and fellow union members, throughout the country.

Happy Thanksgiving,

Roberta Reardon, National President

Kim Roberts Hedgpeth, National Executive Director

Posted in SAG Politics, SAG-AFTRA | Print | 4 Comments »

November 26, 2008 by WW.

There are increasing calls from those who seem skeptical about the impending vote on a strike authorization in the TV-Theatrical impasse for the union to send out the actual AMPTP proposal as part of the campaign. So far, all that’s been sent out is criticism of the “last, best and final” offer.

Earlier today, we told you about an e-mail that went out from 5757 kicking off the “educational” campaign - it turns out at the same time SAG was posting a statement from Alan Rosenberg and a video version of it on its website announcing the kickoff, all prompting a quick response from the AMPTP.

Here are the two messages: 

Dear Screen Actors Guild Member,As your president, I want to take this opportunity to communicate directly with you about recent developments regarding our television and motion picture contract negotiations.

Last week, under the guidance of a federal mediator, we attempted to resolve our differences with the AMPTP. Our national negotiators and committee met with the mediator prior to our sessions with management, and followed the protocol and advice of the mediator. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts over two days to find creative solutions designed to move the process forward and to reach agreement, the federal mediator adjourned the mediation process early Saturday morning after concluding that mediation was over.

Now, per the resolution passed by 97% of our newly constituted national board of directors in October, we are launching a member education campaign and we will send out a strike referendum ballot to SAG members in December. We ask that you support your board and negotiating committee, and vote YES to authorize the board to call a strike only if it becomes absolutely necessary.

Your leadership believes that we must be empowered with the real threat of a work stoppage in order to let management know that we are committed to protecting the future of all actors. We ask for your support, knowing that you have entrusted us to fight for your rights, and to protect your wages, working conditions and your health and pension benefits. We take your trust very, very seriously and will work towards reaching a fair agreement without a work stoppage.

Management continues to apply its one-size-fits-all demands to SAG actors. And we continue to stress that actors have unique, reasonable needs that are different, not better, but different, than writers, directors and crewmembers. So they are telling us to allow the unions who negotiated before SAG to be our proxies. I wonder, would NBC ever let ABC negotiate its license fees for them? Of course not, but they think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask us to defer to the needs of other union workers and ignore what is critical to actors and their families.

It’s also curious that these global corporations are preaching to us about the bad economy. Like it’s our fault. As middle-income actors we are the victims of corporate greed. We didn’t cause this turmoil.

Now, more that ever, we need to take a unified stand, in solidarity, and protect the art of acting, and actors. I cannot stress this enough. Our ability to make our livings as professional actors for decades to come is at stake. New media is not an “experiment” as the employers want you to think. It’s their future, and it’s our future.So please, don’t believe all the rhetoric management is sending over the airwaves and to the press. Please read your SAG emails and watch our website for the real facts.

In unity,

Alan Rosenberg 

 AMPTP: 

SAG’s latest mass email 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.  

Posted in Exhibit A - TV Theatrical | Print | 3 Comments »

November 26, 2008 by WW.

Earlier today we linked to a Variety story suggesting a SAG strike would help AFTRA, which is continuing to pick up market share as SAG lurches through the uncertainty of the TV-Theatrical impasse. What we missed was the Hollywood Reporter story the day before which was the first to report that the networks are putting the pedal to the metal producing episodes of existing SAG series.  

Here’s THR’s analysis:

While its effect would not be as far reaching as this year’s strike by the WGA — a SAG walkout would only affect scripted primetime fare — it would derail the broadcast season for a second straight year, this time in the midst of a severe economic crisis.

“Everyone is praying that it won’t happen, but the reality starts to sink in that there may be a strike,” one TV studio exec said.

On Monday, TV executives who normally would be embarking on a Thanksgiving vacation were working on contingencies. For now, there are no plans to cancel or shorten the primetime series’ holiday hiatuses, scheduled for the last two weeks of December in order to get more episodes in the can….

About eight broadcast series are under AFTRA, with five of them freshman shows: “90210,” “Gary Unmarried” and the upcoming “Better Off Ted,” “The Unusuals” and “Harper’s Island.” While the transition from film to digital has been slowly increasing AFTRA’s piece of the primetime pie, the shift has been more profound this year, which some observers attribute in part to the threat of a SAG strike.

And with such a strike falling smack in the middle of broadcast nets’ pilot production season, more producers of digitally shot pilots may opt to go with AFTRA this year.

Posted in Exhibit A - TV Theatrical, SAG-AFTRA | Print | 5 Comments »

November 26, 2008 by Editor.

Here’s the latest in the e-mail salvos that will apparently be the main thrust of the “educational” campaign in support of the impending TV-Theatrical strike authorization vote. 

Why should we vote to authorize a strike?
We need to show management that we are willing to fight to preserve our ability to earn a living as union performers; otherwise, management will take that away from us. Nearly half of our earnings as union performers come from residuals, but management wants us to allow them to make programs for the Internet and other new media non-union and with no residuals. This means that as audiences shift from watching us on their televisions to watching us on their computers and cell phones our ability to earn a living will go away and future generations of actors may never be able to earn a living through their craft. This change will happen faster than you think.

To add insult to injury, management also insists that we eliminate force majeure protections from our contract. These protections have existed since the first SAG contract in 1937 and protect you when production stops as the result of an “act of God” like a natural disaster or a strike by another union, such as the WGA strike earlier this year. This is an enormous rollback that will leave actors without one of the most basic protections of a union contract.

What is the effect of voting “yes” to authorize a strike?
Voting “yes” does not mean that there will automatically be a strike. A strike authorization is a tool that gives us more leverage in negotiations and we intend to use it to try to get a fair deal. If we receive “yes” votes from at least 75% of the members who vote on this referendum, the National Board will have the ability to call a strike, but it must vote to do that, and that won’t happen before we attempt further negotiations to reach a deal with management.

Why does management believe we should endorse non-union, residual-free work in New Media?
Management claims this bad deal is necessary because they need to “experiment” with new media and they claim they will renegotiate these terms with us in the future. We have already agreed to most of management’s new media terms, however, and have proposed, in the areas where we still disagree, extremely flexible terms for new media based on our successful low budget theatrical contracts and our nearly 800 made-for-new media contracts with independent producers. Our terms will allow management the latitude to experiment using union actors.

And how can we believe that management will ever improve these new media terms when they still won’t improve the home video residual formula after 22 years? Right now all the actors on a given cast share 1% of the revenue generated through DVD sales because of a formula we agreed to in 1986 when management needed to “experiment” with home video. In this negotiation, we have asked only that management at least make pension and health contributions on DVD residuals, rather than making us pay them ourselves out of our paltry 1%. They have refused even that!

The basic cable residual formula was also negotiated early in the history of that medium to reflect the then “experimental” status of basic cable programming and pays only a small fraction of network television residuals. It is now over 20 years later, 27% of all television ad dollars are now spent on basic cable, and the basic cable formula still pays only a small fraction of network television residuals. Management simply does not have a history of ever ending their “experiments” and paying us fairly.

The reality is that management is opportunistic and they believe they can force these concessions on us because they believe we are weak and divided. We need your vote to prove them wrong.

Don’t all these terms just go away at the end of 3 years anyway because management has agreed to a “sunset clause”?
All the “sunset clause” means is that if management wants to maintain in future negotiations the bad new media deal they want to force on us now, they must write those terms down on a piece of paper and give it to us as a proposal. Do you really believe that this will provide us with any protection in a future negotiation if management decides that they like making non-union, residual-free programs in new media? The fact is that once management establishes a business model that relies upon non-union, residual-free production, it will be even harder to change their minds. Just look at how hard they continue to fight to avoid improving the home video formula, well after DVD’s have become their richest source of revenue.

Haven’t the other Hollywood unions accepted this deal already? Why do we need a better deal?
We are not looking for a “better” deal. We are looking for a deal that is different and that recognizes the unique needs of actors. No other union represents the actors who appear in motion pictures or the actors who account for over 95% of the earnings in primetime network television. While management likes to pretend, when it suits them, that “pattern bargaining” is somehow obligatory for unions in this industry, the fact is that we have a legal right to negotiate our own contract. And for good reason—the “pattern,” in many cases, affects us differently:

The impact of sanctioning non-union made-for-new media programs is different for us. Many performers must rely on the collective bargaining power of the union to obtain fair terms of employment. Unlike the writer or director, a day performer or background actor may not have the leverage to negotiate fair terms for themselves. Performers, especially stunt performers, also have health and safety issues on the set that aren’t shared by writers or directors and they rely on the union to look out for them. And unlike writers or directors, our union faces a significant threat from non-union performers who want to provide producers with an alternative workforce they can use to make their product without having to comply with union terms and conditions. Allowing our employers to make non-union new media productions will allow these non-union actors to gain credits and experience, which will make non-union production easier and more attractive and thereby reduce the opportunities for union actors like us to get work.

Allowing residuals-free new media production also impacts performers differently. Unlike writers and directors, most performers don’t earn enough in initial compensation to live on. Instead, we rely on residuals to get us through the lean times. As production inevitably shifts from traditional media to new media, the lack of residuals in new media will eventually choke off that vital source of income that enables us to stay in the profession even when we aren’t working so that we can audition, hone our craft and remain available for new roles. In such a world, many of us will be reduced to amateurs working day jobs to support our acting habit.

There are already lots of differences between management’s new media proposal to us and their deals with the DGA and WGA. For example, management has agreed to set minimum payments for writers of made-for-new media programs, but refuses to do so for actors. Why doesn’t the pattern apply to this critical issue? There are other differences. The minimum residual for a TV show rerun on the Internet for six months is over $600 for a director or a writer, but only $22.77 for an actor who works as a day player. On the other hand, use of clips of an actor’s work on the Internet requires consent by the actor, but a director’s or writer’s work can be used as a clip on the Internet without their consent. Is that better, worse or just different? Management talks about their new media template like it is exactly the same for each union and can’t be changed. In fact, management has proposed varying new media provisions to different unions when it suited them, but they have refused when we have proposed reasonable and modest changes, like making sure all made-for-new media productions are done union and pay residuals.

Are we sure that we have exhausted every opportunity to make a deal before asking for this authorization?
We shouldn’t have to exhaust every opportunity to make a deal before asking for a strike authorization. Most successful unions ask for a strike authorization early on, sometimes before they even start bargaining, because management is more likely to take the union seriously if they know the members are willing to fight. We didn’t do that this time because the WGA strike had just ended, but our union needs to get back to the routine practice of approving a strike authorization well before we get to the expiration of the current contract. Actors elected by the membership to the SAG National Board decide by a vote if and when a strike should be called.

As it happens, we have absolutely exhausted every possible opportunity to make a deal before asking for this authorization. We spent 42 days between April and July in hard bargaining with the AMPTP. In the months that followed, we bargained informally, met with CEO’s and educated our membership about the issues. Finally, we asked for a federal mediator to intervene. After nearly a month, management agreed to return to the bargaining table for a marathon mediation session that ran late into the night on two consecutive days until the mediator finally declared that it was pointless to continue.

After all of that, management’s positions on the fundamental issues at stake in this negotiation are the same as they were on the first day of bargaining. On the other hand, we have pared down our demands, made painful concessions and offered compromise after compromise, all to no avail. It is crystal clear that without the support of our membership for this authorization, we will have no choice to but swallow whatever management sees fit to give us lock, stock and barrel.

Is a strike really feasible considering how bad the economy is right now?
The bad economy hurts management just as much as it hurts us. As uncertain and anxious as our employers are about the future of their businesses and of their own jobs, the prospect of a SAG membership willing to go to the mat and fight them is the last thing they want. Yes, the bad economy means that it will require more of a sacrifice from some of our members if in fact a strike becomes necessary, but remember that this union was founded and obtained its first contract during the depths of the Great Depression. Hard times do not mean that we stop demanding fair treatment from management.

What can I do to help?
Vote “yes” on the strike authorization referendum. It’s our best hope of obtaining a fair contract. Talk to your fellow SAG members wherever you can find them and convince them to vote “yes” too. Read your email and visit the SAG website to stay informed and learn about town hall meetings and other events in your area and make sure you attend. Better yet, bring another member with you. If you can’t attend, or prefer to express yourself in writing, email your thoughts and suggestions to contracts2008@sag.org. We read every email that comes in.

And most importantly, stay strong. Do not let management intimidate you into accepting less than you deserve. If we stay united, we will prevail.

Posted in Exhibit A - TV Theatrical | Print | 6 Comments »

November 26, 2008 by Editor.

A reader pointed out perhaps the best interview yet regarding the TV-Theatrical mess. Alan Rosenberg was on KFI Monday night (the full interview is available via their podcast service.)

Rosenberg was interviewed by two unusually well informed talk show hosts, Kennedy and Bryan Suits - Kennedy is a dual card holder - and neither host rolled over, challenging Rosenberg’s usual talking points, and forcing him to defend the position SAG has taken.

Rosenberg called the TV-Theatrical contract a “life and death” battle, asserting, as he has for months, that the AMPTP positions mean “the end of residuals.” But when asked why actors are “special” and why the SAG deal should be different from the DGA/WGA/AFTRA template, Rosenberg started in on the now-prohibited AFTRA bashing which has been the staple of Membership First for the past few years.

“They (AFTRA) came in and they expresed the need to sign on to this deal and didn’t ask the questions we needed to ask,” Rosenberg said.

That may seem relatively mild, and, for Membership First, it is really mild, but it seems to be a violation of the no disparagement agreement between the unions. What may allow SAG to escape a fine for the disparaging comment is the fact that we hear the agreement may not have been formally signed yet.

Rosenberg’s comments were a bit more on target than usual (speaking of the AMPTP - “When they get the money in their pockets it’s very hard to get it out”), but he offered up some pretty extreme and absurd statements, including a claim that “if our members don’t give us the authorization to strike, we’ll have to roll over in the other negotiations as well” - meaning the Commercials Contract and Interactive.

At one point Rosenberg grew testy and went on the attack, telling Kennedy “You sound more like a foe than a friend.” He later explained that it was supposed to be a joke, a reference to a show Kennedy had done.

On the anti-strike movement, he said SAG members should have faith in him and their board and repeated the strange assertion that without a TV-Theatrical strike authorization the union would have to give in on all its contracts. Perhaps his best moment followed almost immediately, in which Rosenberg said that while it’s important to remember the effects of a strike on the rest of the town, the effects of the contract on actors are what this is all about.

The interview is long (about 17 minutes), but worth a listen.

Posted in Interactive, Commercials Contract, Exhibit A - TV Theatrical, SAG-AFTRA | Print | 15 Comments »

November 25, 2008 by WW.

We told you months ago that SAG’s prime time market share had dropped below 50% on the major nets and cable operations. Now Variety says the trend is even more towards AFTRA because of the failure to reach a TV-Theatrical deal between SAG and the AMPTP.

Here’s the big quote:

“If they’re about to go on strike in mid-January, why would we not do deals with AFTRA wherever possible?” said a senior business exec at a top TV shop. “The short-term mentality of (SAG’s) leadership is just staggering to us.”

Existing SAG shows may go into production overdrive and work through the holidays to try to bank episodes prior to any strike.

Posted in Exhibit A - TV Theatrical | Print | 9 Comments »

November 25, 2008 by Editor.

You can never really tell with McNary. But, it’s probably worth noting that in another of his no-source articles, Variety’s SAG scrivener writes:

With major gaps still remaining, it’s unlikely that News Corp. president Peter Chernin and Disney CEO Robert Iger will repeat their roles as diplomats in hammering out a SAG deal. The duo met with SAG prexy Alan Rosenberg and national exec director Doug Allen in early April in an effort to come to an agreement on the agenda for the formal bargaining, but that session was unproductive enough that the moguls opted to back away and let the formal negotiations process play out (Daily Variety, April 10).Iger and Chernin had been key players in crafting the DGA deal in January and the WGA deal a few weeks later. The duo began talks on the latter pact after the WGA announced it had backed off its demands for jurisdiction over reality TV and animation.

Posted in Exhibit A - TV Theatrical | Print | 4 Comments »