You pick up extra money doing stenography for the AMPTP? Smart. Tough economy. Take what you can get.

Let’s completely obliterate your ridiculous post, shall we?
________________________________

“the DGA came in and, on the strength of the pressure that the WGA strike was applying, succeeded in making major inroads in the New Media arena among other things. THIS IS WHERE THE COMPROMISING OCCURRED.”
—————————————————–
“major inroads in new media.” the DGA. Really? You mean, like a percentage of distributors gross, which protects the DGA AND the AMPTP?

THAT’S a “major inroad.” What the DGA got? Is not. Sorry…
————————————————
“When SAG came in and asked for completely different (and superior) New Media terms, it was the same thing. The AMPTP made clear that it had done all the compromising it was prepared to do when it cut its earlier deals.”
—————————————
SAG asked for terms that would stop middle-class actors from having to leave the acting profession because they will lose a third to half their income if this contract is signed as is. That is the reality of what SAG asked for. What the DGA and the WGA, who get MUCH larger up-front fees, agreed to? Is TOTALLY irrelevant to the needs of the middle-class actor.

SAG made it clear, the AMPTP was NOT DONE “compromising” on new media. “Compromise” when it means “lose a third to half your income? Is not “compromise” - regardless of what other unions have agreed to. It’s a dagger in the heart. Generally not something a SAG negotiator possibly CAN agree to, let alone WANT to agree to.
————————————————–

“Had SAG not insisted on pressing these non-starter issues, it might have been able to make real progress on rollbacks like Force Majeure, 90-day “must-join” provisions for New Media talent, and the like. It might also have been possible to negotiate improvements in other areas.”
———————————–
“Non-starter issues?” So, a slight increase in DVD residuals, off a ridiculously low-ball formula, based on the exact same reasoning the AMPTP is making now, that the AMPTP would “revisit” and “renegotatiate” the VHS/DVD formula from 1986 once they established - “if” - they established a profit stream and a “business model” for VHS/DVD?

Well, they did! A multi, multi-billion dollar “business model!” Go figure! That SAG lost hundreds of millions of dollars on in the last 22 years, because the AMPTP LIED! ? Can you believe it?! Da Noive!

And now, according to the AMPTP, DVD residual raises, even as paltry as 15 %, which would basically cover P&H contributions, are a “non-starter!” Don’t you get it SAG negotiators?! It’s a “non-starter!” What’s the confusion! Jeez - MOVE ON ALREADY - WOULDJA!?

A “non-starter?” First, I’d point you to some of your colleagues, such as Jonathan Handel and others, who completely disagree with you, and feel quite strongly SAG “dropped the ball” by going soft on DVD residuals. They seem to feel there was “real opportunity” there. So, which is it? I’ll leave you to argue amongst yourselves about that one.
_________________________

“SAG members are asking themselves: If these New Media provisions are so dire, how come the DGA, the WGA, and AFTRA were willing to agree to them? Are those people ALL so stupid?”
_______________________

First: yes, they are. Simple enough.

Second: you may have missed the memo, but actors (?) as opposed to directors (?) and writers (?) rely for up to 50% of their yearly income on residuals. It’s basically what allows middle-class actors to stay in the business. ALL of the “stars” signing the “no” petition? There’s probably not one of them that has waited anxiously for a residual check in twenty years - IF EVER. So, there’s that. I’d have thought you’d have been made aware of that HUGE difference with the DGA and the WGA by now.

As to AFTRA? let’s just say, AFTRA had, and has, some rather obvious motivation to be out there, without competition, trying to sign shows, gain power and jurisdiction, while SAG suffers this crisis, greatly helped along by AFTRA’s betrayal. AFTRA would basically sign ANYTHING. And has. Often.
—————————————————–
“SAG claims that the New Media terms represent “the end of residuals,” but the logic behind that claim is fallacious once examined.”
______________________________

Again, I love it when you talk dirty. Here’s the reality: all content is going to the web. Find a tech expert who says different, and I’ll eat my hat.

So, here’s the residual offer for new media:

No residuals for original content. EVER.

Ridiculously low residuals for original content OVER 15k per minute (essentially no content)

Non-union UNDER 15k (essentially everything)

Ridiculously low residuals for ALL OTHER NEW MEDIA.

That’s the deal. You know different? Site it. That’s not fallacious - that’s the stone-cold truth.
——————————————
I wouldn’t hire you to sell used cars, let alone fight for the rights of middle-class SAG actors.

Good luck with that logic.

The AMPTP’s plan is to neuter SAG. If SAG strikes, it immediately becomes irrelevant. If SAG doesn’t strike and rejects the contract, it immediately becomes irrelevant. If SAG doesn’t strike and accepts the contract, it may remain relevant but only if it can close some of the other open contracts.

An organization with no contracts and 98 percent unemployment is not a union, it’s a social club.

It’s not about what’s fair, it’s about what’s achievable.

My comments are that the negotiations have failed miserably so far. That’s not stretching the truth. I have no argument with your points regarding what SAG is seeking or has lost. I do see a failed strategy and a union that is vociferously fighting amongst themselves. This does not occur in a vacuum.

I’m no fan of AMPTP either but they do seem to have made a deal with other guilds. Everyone knows that they are not GREAT deals, but they are BETTER deals than they had. Yes, THE AMPTP were tough negotiators - but that’s the game.

It takes two to negotiate and every negotiation starts with someone slamming it on the table and saying “Sign it!” It would be naive of you not to believe otherwise. Was SAG offended when AMPTP did that? Were the feelings of your negotiators hurt? Did it seriously catch them by surprise?

Additionally, taking this personally and insulting everyone who has a differing opinion serves no purpose and, frankly, makes people just shut down to your further comments. Furthermore, they’ll use your anger against you. Hmmm….sounds familiar. The AMPTP knows what they’re doing and SAG needs to rise to the occasion and get to a place were everybody wins.

It seems we are in limbo of not wanting the deal but also unwilling to strike. No-man’s land.

“how can you give away residuals you don’t have?”

Is that some sort of philosophical conundrum gone awry?

If we sign this deal, as is? We allow a huge non-union space in our own contract, we agree to NO residuals for original content for new media, and we agree to ridiculously low residuals for all other content and anything that’s made for MORE than 15k per minute (essentially nothing).

So, Dr., the point is “if we sign this, we GIVE AWAY RESIDUALS” Follow?

We MUST be tied into the producers profit stream via a percentage of distributors gross. I’ve read the criticisms of that formula. They’re ridiculous, and they TOTALLY miss the point.

The point is - THEY DON’T WANT TO PAY US - . WHAT ABOUT THAT DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND?

If they DID? If they wanted to “work with us” or “be fair” or “be reasonable” - why would they come up with this bizarre system with 15k “floors” under which they can produce non-union (everything, for the most part), insist on a non-union space in our own contract, insist on no residuals for original content for the web - EVER - insist on ridiculously low residuals for all content ABOVE 15k per minute (practically nothing) and ridiculously low residuals for everything else, plus - wait for it - FREE WINDOWS!

What about that deal, which you guys are so anxious to sign, in any WAY, SHAPE OR FORM says “reasonable?”

NOTHING.

What SAG is proposing, has proposed, and until they drag them out of the building, will continue to propose, is, that middle-class actors need to be part of the profit stream from day one. SAG is proposing to be part of it in an entirely equitable and flexible way - a percentage of gross revenue: you make a lot? Great! We make our fair share, via a percentage. You make a little? Better luck next time! But, SAG STILL makes it’s LITTLE fair share. We DON’T work for free! You LOSE money? You have NO FIXED obligation to SAG.

Now what, about that formula, or some variation thereof, is, to ANY fair-minded person, unreasonable?

ANSWER - NOTHING.

The OTHER deal? The one the AMPTP is offering? It’s too complicated and obviously punitive for one reason and one reason only - THEY DON’T WANT TO PAY US RESIDUALS ANYMORE.

They SAID IT IN THE NY TIMES IN 2007 and now THEY ARE ON THE VERGE OF PULLING IT OFF YOU DUMMIES.

What a colossal jack-ass.

You need to stay on message pal.