Salomon seems to think there will be this one meeting, at which everyone will throw up their hands in despair and give up immediately.

I, for one, will be furious if this happens. These guys need to work to get a deal. This is not a game, and this is not just an exercise in going through the motions. If they don’t spend some time on the point trying to fashion an agreement, the likelihood of getting a strike authorization will go down dramatically. It will look (and validly so) as though the Negotiating Committee was just going through the formality of a mediation as a prelude to getting a strike authorization, rather than seriously trying to reach an agreement.

Indeed, if the Negotiating Committee doesn’t show sufficient commitment to the mediation process, it would signal time for the National Board to appoint a new committee. The problem is that serious.

Thus, the Negotiating Committee has to ask itself: When is it likely to get a better deal?

(a) Now, with the assistance of the federal mediator? Or

(b) Later, following a failed strike authorization vote?

VG

VG -
I could not agree more. All over the country people are surrendering homes, businesses, lifestyles that before now seemed like “nothing special.”

Times are extremely tough, except for contracted employees like the SAG NED. He seems to be weathering this financial storm just fine.
I can’t help but wonder if his lack of stress over his personal finances has anything to do with his mind boggling lack of determination to make thoughtful and meaningful moves toward getting members protected under a contract.

The amount that this debacle has/is costing the membership - not to mention the P&H - is unconscionable.

V.

look at it this way. Why would the AMPTP change its LBFA. They are currently saving a good deal by paying less than the AFTRA contract right now.They know SAG cannot get strike authorization from it’s members. Why do anything? If anyone thinks actors are going to vote a strike in this economy with xmas right around the corner, they’re nuts.

Kathy -
Good points.
Sad, but accurate.

V.

I believe you all have wildly misjudged a lot of the factors here.

First off, the election results were not a repudiation of Membership First tactics. They were a confirmation of the power celebrity has to pull votes. The most well-known were elected, irregardless of slate(5 UFS celebs, 5 MF celebs, and 1 celeb independent.) The leader of the UFS slate did not get elected-he was like 10th alternate-really his place in the voting was a direct reflection of his on-camera notoriety. So was David Jolliffe’s, for that matter.

Secondly, when are people going to realize that the state of the economy has nothing to do with the willingness of members to authorize a strike? Our industry is not like others, in which everyone has a steady job and works 8-5 Monday through Friday. The national unemployment rate is now at 6.5%. The unemployment rate of actors? At any one given time, it’s probably 95%. I still fail to see what actors that don’t work have to lose by going on strike.

If SAG can pull a decent voter turnout a strike authorization will pass.

Matthew your dreaming

Matthew, actors don’t live in a vaccuum. Even out of work actors have relationships with people who work within the industry: boyfriends, girlfriends, spouses, best friends. Some actors may even rely on the income from some of the above to support themselves.

Let MF bet its future on pulling that trigger. If the vote fails, they’re toast. If the vote succeeds but the strike fails, they’re toast. If the strike has a muddy ending, they’re toast. Only if the strike is brilliantly successful in the worst economic conditions in a hundred years - do they win. Now I wonder why they haven’t forced a vote yet. Must not believe in democracy or the wisdom of the members.

I’m worried less about the state of the economy than about the state of the industry.

We found, after the Commercials strike in 2000, that a massive amount of work disappeared permanently from LA and NY. It’s not that advertisers stopped making commercials; its just that they found ways to make them without actors, or with non-union talent, often in other countries where overall costs were also lower to boot. It’s possible that these changes might have occurred slowly (over a decade) even without the strike, but when SAG and AFTRA forced the advertisers’ hand with the strike, the advertisers discovered a whole new world of ways to bypass SAG and AFTRA, and never looked back.

Another strike in the scripted entertainment world is likely to lead to a similar outcome, in my view. The industry is already shaky after the writers’ strike, and another strike so soon afterward is likely to divert a big chunk of work permanently to alternate channels.

In my opinion, SAG’s demand for jurisdiction over all original and derivative New Media production — that is, eliminating the exceptions based on budget levels — is as much of a non-starter as cable pay-per-play was during the Commercials strike. The studios are not going to be willing to agree to something that would instantly cause all their other New Media deals to unravel. I think that as SAG members really think about their futures, they will be unwilling to strike to try and gain that jurisdiction, knowing what an uphill battle it will be AND remembering how, in 2000, SAG and AFTRA still failed to get cable pay-per-play (which was supposed to be the big strike issue) even after six months of picketing. And when you add to it the concern that a strike right now would probably lead to permanent loss of work opportunities, I believe it would take a lot to persuade people to authorize a strike.

And what of the timing? Just the balloting process for a strike authorization vote takes 3+ weeks, and we keep hearing that there will be some kind of “member education” activity to support it. When would that occur? Before the ballots go out? And will it be another glossy twelve-page brochure that explains the issues in such abstract terms that no one can really follow what’s going on?

If this “education” process has to go on BEFORE a strike authorization vote is taken, now we’re looking at probably the end of January before a vote is tallied. And then the national board would have to meet to authorize a strike, but — if SAG was being honest with its members when the strike authorization was sought, saying “a strike authorization does not mean a strike” — there would have to be at least some attempt at a “final” round of negotiation before commencing a strike. So where does that put us — March? The Golden Globes are in early January, and the Academy Awards are on February 22. Oops.

I think there are very few members who would believe that “a strike authorization does not mean a strike,” despite SAG’s assurances. People voting ‘yes’ for strike authorization would have to do so knowing full well that, if the required 75% vote comes in, a strike would be called for sure. SAG’s attempt at education to the contrary will fall on mostly deaf ears.

So the question would not be, Are people willing to equip the negotiators with a strike authorization in order to strengthen their negotiating hand? It will be, Are people prepared to actually go out on strike sometime in early 2009? Which leads to, Are people willing to accept the long-term consequences of that strike?

VG

–

Ed. Comment - It’s a bit off topic here, but it’s not just the entertainment industry economy that has us worried. People are scared now. They’re not buying cars. They’re not buying clothes. They’re not going to restaurants. The fear is what’s making the economy worse as much as anything else. The high gas prices that everyone said were responsible for the start of the downturn are long gone. Prices are actually lower than they were a couple of years ago. That ought to be starting to turn things around, except that everyone’s in full panic because all the supposedly responsible people in DC are screaming that the sky is falling. Getting back to SAG, that has to have an effect on our negotiations.

davidcooper hits the nail on the head.
Add this to it:
MF seems willing to risk weakening the Screen Actors Guild for years to come
in an attempt to merely sooth their damaged egos and their distorted psyches.
It’s lose/lose all the way with MF.
The only question that remains is:
will they try to take the entire membership down with themselves in their scorched earth policy.

It’s no coincidence that 5757 is right next to the Tar Pits …

Here’s a PARTIAL list of business closings that are happening/will happen in the very near future:

Circuit City (filed Chapter 11)
Ann Taylor 117 stores nationwide closing
Lane Bryant, Fashion Bug ,and Catherine’s to close 150 stores nationwide
Eddie Bauer to close stores 27 stores and more after January
Cache will close all stores
Talbots closing down specialty stores
J. Jill closing all stores (owned by Talbots) Pacific Sunwear (also
owned by Talbots)
GAP closing 85 stores
Footlocker closing 140 stores more to close after January
Wickes Furniture closing down
Levitz closing down remaining stores
Bombay closing remaining stores
Zales closing down 82 stores immediately
and 105 after January
Whitehall closing all stores
Piercing Pagoda closing all stores
Disney closing 98 stores and will close more after January.
Home Depot closing 15 stores nationwide
Macys to close 9 stores after January
Linens and Things closing all stores
Movie Galley Closing all stores
Pep Boys Closing 33 stores
Sprint/Nextel closing 133 stores
JC Penney closing up to 50 stores after January
Ethan Allen closing down 12 stores.
Wilson Leather closing down all stores
Sharper Image closing down all stores
K B Toys closing 356 stores
Loews to close down at least 15 stores nationwide
Dillard’s to close some stores

In addition, Saks is offering 40 to 60% discounts to GET PEOPLE IN THE DOOR. Same for Neimans. NO-body is buying anything but:
1) Food
2) Gas

To say that the entertainment industry does not live in a vacuum is an understatement. Companies are folding like cheap lawn chairs. And most of these stores listed above are owned by the same conglomerates that own our industry.

Times are tough, but the pervasive fear is making it far worse than it needs to be.

V.

vested,

You missed a few. I went to my local mall in Burbank CA and three stores in a row were going out of business. Shoe Pavilion , Mervyn’s and one you mentioned linens n’ things.

On the bright side, the movie box office is doing well and every dollar gas prices go down is like a 200 dollar stimulus.

I think Hugh meant to say 200 Billion dollar stimulus…

–

Ed. Response - You’re probably right. About the only $200 stimulus these days is what’s in the back pages of the free tabloids or on craigslist.

Hugh -
I didn’t include all stores (hence the disclaimer, “Partial” list) …

But you’re absolutely right …

Shoe Pavilion is done.
Mervyn’s will close up shop completely after the Holidays.
Starbucks has closed/is closing over 600 stores.
Steinmart is closing 16 stores.
Goody’s is done.
Steve and Barry’s is done.
Crescent Furniture is closing.

The list goes on …

“This is the hardest environment in 30 years for retailers,” said Peter Schaeffer, a partner with corporate restructuring and investment adviser Carl Marks. “Chances of companies that have filed for bankruptcy coming out whole is difficult.”

Approximately 6000 store closings are expected by the end of 2008.
When you calculate that number by how many people are losing jobs as a result … anybody wanna strike?

V.

Vested (#12 and #15) –

Think about why many of these store chains are going out of business (or shrinking their footprint as a prelude to going out of business): It’s a reflection of the march of technology and social change. People no longer battle traffic to get to a mall when they can get the same thing by sitting at their computer and ordering it from Amazon.com, with free shipping to boot!

The same forces are affecting SAG’s world, and neither SAG nor any other entity can hold these forces back. They may be able to postpone the effects briefly, by forcing the studios into uneconomic work rules or compensation models, but the most likely outcome of that sort of thing (and it’s the point that Michael Apted made so well earlier this year) is that this kind of work will quickly bypass the studios (and SAG) altogether.

Take clip consent. Right now, pirated clips are everywhere. The studios would like to find an economical way to exploit these clips themselves, and perhaps bring some order to the current chaos. But if SAG makes it unduly burdensome to get clip consent, the most likely outcome will be that the studios just pass on this whole area. In other words, why should the studios invest in lawyers and enforcement proceedings to knock out the pirates if the studios themselves don’t get a suitable return on that investment?

That’s the problem with the attitudes of David and Kent and others who seem to think we’re still living in the Brady Bunch era when things were simple, markets were relatively orderly because only a few players controlled the key channels, and unions could fashion agreements that tapped into this order. We no longer live in that world. The pace of online change is dizzying. William Goldman’s famous comment about Hollywood, “Nobody knows anything,” is true to an exponential degree in the online space.

So think about the stores that are closing or have recently closed. Some (probably not all) had unionized employees who attempted to bargain for a fair deal involving salary, benefits, work rules, and so on. But when the store closes, that stuff goes away.

What replaces it?

All the other avenues for bringing those products to the market — assuming, of course, that the market is still interested in those products. Obsolescence is a second problem (a store devoted to bell-bottom pants or waterbeds would probably struggle today).

Could a union for employees at Mervyn’s stop this from happening? No.

What this means for SAG at present is that we simply don’t know enough to make wise decisions about how to handle New Media and the online world generally. Neither do the studios. They want some freedom to allow this area to develop without undue burden. And yes, I am sure there are those who would be delighted if somehow that development could be steered in a manner that marginalized or even eliminated SAG’s influence.

But it’s not an either/or situation. The studios aren’t forced to do anything in New Media. They’d like to, but if their ability is too burdened with paperwork, clearance requirements, recordkeeping requirements, and the potential of arbitrations over whether any given matter was handled properly, they will be less willing to pour resources into these developments. That’s when others who aren’t tied down to the Hollywood structure will step in to fill the void, because while the studios are still trying to get past being put on hold at SAG, an adept youngster can have an entire production in the can. That’s the reality that SAG is trying to smother, but it can’t be done. The studios themselves lack the power to keep that genie in the bottle. The only question will be whether they participate in it or simply buy product from third parties.

VG