SAG Approves Contract

[cmgoodin]

SAG voted in the new Theatrical contract today with 78% approval.

Read more here:http://www.sag.org/tvtheatrical-negotiations

Maybe we can all go back to work now...  OH Wait .... The Economy is still in the Crapper.

Oh.. Well...

-----Courtney

[old school]

78% is quite a comment of SAG and it's failed leadership. I hope there is something new to learn from all this horseshit. I can't think of any yet.

CrewC

[Richard Lightstone, CAS]

I think SAG President Alan Rosenberg should resign immediately for orchestrating this fiasco. I heard him being interviewed today, still sticking to the same idiotic talking points that caused this stalemate to go on for 11 1/2 months!

He will not be reelected this September. I truly hope he never gets an acting job again. Working as a car hop at a fancy restaurant valet car service would be his just reward!

RL

[Laurence]

I wouldn't be in total agreement with that, Richard.  In fact, I think Rosenberg is the one who had it right.  What bugs me is that this time around, even though these new contracts will do more damage than anything we have seen during our working careers, the Producers still pulled off a Grand Slam with almost no measurable resistance from the unions and guild.  I'd hate to be a newcomer just getting into the business now.

Laurence

[old school]

Laurence, I can't speak for Richard, but I disagree. Even if Rosenberg were right, he played his hand all wrong. He wasted his credibility and capital for what? Selling us all down the river in the future. A 2 year contract for SAG that is the same as before? A weakened TV landscape for them as well as the IATSE? They helped make the Corporations stronger. Could the IA be stronger? Sure. We can all be stronger, but will we? I doubt it. Certainly harder now than before.

CrewC

[Laurence]

I with you agree totally, Crew.  Rosenberg played his hand wrong.  But his cards were right.

Laurence

[Richard Lightstone, CAS]

The "cards" he was playing with were from an old game. That game was when the economy was strong and the entertainment industry was making money hand over fist. The town had already suffered from a three month WGA strike.

Shortly after the June 2008 contract expiration and SAG sticking to it's negotiating stance that got them no where, the economy tanked.

Rosenberg and his cronies kept playing the same lousy cards and what they "won" was jack.

They helped shut down feature production and lost a huge amount of money their union members could have been earning. Just like the WGA strike, the contractual "gains" will never equal the money lost from a shut down of production and the entire landscape of both television and feature films changed forever.

You can applaud this loser all you want. Bad leadership, inept negotiating and stubbornness is not what he was elected for.

He's a disgrace and a lousy poker player to boot.

RL

[Phil Palmer]

.... what they "won" was jack.  >>>>>>snip<<<<<<  a lousy poker player to boot...

Go Richard!

[Laurence]

And therein lies the reason why 15% of us will lose our health insurance in 2 years.  You call it bad economy and inept negotiating.... I call it a colossal case of opportunistic corporate greed.  On the health issue, at least we can hope that the Federal govt. will have filled the gap by then.  I suppose that those who believe the Company spin that this is the best deal we could get will imagine that when the economy improves, the Producers will suddenly give us back all the things they took away.  Yuh, right.

[RPSharman]

Laurence,

I don't think anyone disagrees the contract was crap.  The failure was in the weak support of the WGA strike from the rest of the unions, and the WGA giving up too soon under pressure to end the strike.  It was a domino effect.  Everyone else had to fall into place because the producers saw that we were all weak and not united.

Rosenberg's failure was not realizing that he was bargaining from a position of weakness.  It was a complete and utter failure from beginning to end.  His stubbornness and pigheadedness created not only fighting within his own membership, but alienated other unions too.

We will continue to fail in our negotiations until will all support each other and hire lawyers to run our unions and not allow ourselves to be governed by members without careers who have virtually no experience and who have no weapons, not even a sling shot, against the corporate giants.

If we are not willing to level the playing field, then we might as well adjust our lifestyles and move in line with the rest of the faceless factory workers.  This is why I would actually love to be getting into the business now, not knowing how good it used to be could be a real bonus!!

Robert

[Laurence]

Very true, Robert... very true.

Laurence

[old school]

Hard to believe how happy the crew I am working with today is about the end of the strike. Even though it has zero to do w commercials directly, they all feel this is going to make things better for Hollywood. I'm glad we are all so glad to be glad, but I wonder how many think or see the big picture of the situation.

Laurence, there was never any way SAG was going to get more from the contract than the WGA or the DGA and the failure of SAG leadership to understand this at this point in time was their failure. Wasted time and lost money and stressed lives was all we all got from this IMO.

CrewC

[Laurence]

Crew, don't fall for that same bogus excuse they trot out before each negotiation.  "No way they are going to get better than DGA".  Really?  Why, is that the law?  Plus.... you have to understand how this works.  Once they got DGA to roll over, which is a foregone conclusion since most of the DGA members are Producers, they use that bogus "no way" line against every other sucker that sits down at the negotiating table... even though each guild and union has completely and totally different issues.  You want to give me the same deal that actors have?  Fine, I'll take that.  I'll take the Directors deal, too.  Believe me, you get nothing like what actors and directors get so how can you accept it when they say "no way you'll get better than DGA or WGA"?  This is not about how little money the Producers are making.  Quite the contrary, it's about how much they are making, and about how much more they can afford to spend on their lawyers, and about how much more they can afford to slow down production and force us into submission.  They sit back and laugh when they see us rationalize this whole thing into believing we did well.  I don't think it's very funny.

Laurence

[Noah Timan]

The "cards" he was playing with were from an old game. That game was when the economy was strong and the entertainment industry was making money hand over fist.

Bad leadership, inept negotiating and stubbornness is not what he was elected for.

Well said.

[old school]

Believe me when I say I understand the Producers tactics, but if I have understood them all along than the so called SAG leadership should of as well. So far Robert Sharman has had the best idea.

CrewC

[John Coffey]

We saw what just happened with our last contract.  Many of you will be losing your health care through the increase in hours needed to qualify and the internet can of worms will be crawling over us soon.  How many of your unions even had a single membership meeting to even discuss the contract, before it was sent out with a bullet to accept? 

There is no degrading or denying that Rosenberg is one of the last of the unionists to actually put up a fight for his members. 

I do admire Rosenberg for standing up for SAG, but then he took the stalemate on for far too long.  Within 30 days of the SAG contract expiration last year, he was under a leadership duty to his members (and the industry) to take it to a vote, then strike or not.  I fault him for dragging it out.  The producers laid siege as their "union" fell apart and he played right into their hands as infighting tore them apart. 

Good heart, but inept leader.

The bigger issue now that continues to loom with every new SAG contract is that the majority of SAG voters have other jobs that pay their bills, so as a voting group, they are the tail wagging the dog.  Most true unions are made up of members and retirees who derive most of their income from jobs the union represents.  They have more skin in the game.  In this case, most of the industry crafts at large were ultimately affected far worse than the bulk of SAG actors who rarely get work at their craft even in the best of times.  Should their vote count as much as those actors who are gainfully employed at acting, without another job to fall back on?  I have talked to many SAG actors who are really extras who may have gotten a line here or there.  They include my poolman, bartenders, waiters, persoanal trainers, models,...it will continue to be a tough issue.

[RPSharman]

You make a good point, John.  I feel that only actors who make a living at acting (how about anyone averaging above the national poverty line in income from work and/or residuals over the three year contract period) should be given a vote.  Fair enough?

[Philip Perkins]

You make a good point, John.  I feel that only actors who make a living at acting (how about anyone averaging above the national poverty line in income from work and/or residuals over the three year contract period) should be given a vote.  Fair enough?

During the LAST actor's strike, I witnessed a nasty set-to on the set between a DP and a very part-time actor.  The actor was all for "sticking it to the man" and holding out (esp since he was really a waiter and web designer for a living), and the normally mild mannered DP tore into him as being an inconsiderate dilettante that was helping to destroy the business as a livelihood for craftspeople.  A lot of pent of resentments, esp between actors and crew people have bubbled up during this last go-around...

Philip Perkins

[Laurence]

This guy's not a waiter.

Laurence

[studiomprd]

Today's hot topic, but really it was a foregone conclusion that the vote would be to sign the crummy contract.

So: the Producers have won, and in fact they have won the quadruple crown.  the producers, and of course their "team" did good, they won in all contests (writers, Directors, Technicians and Actors), and in all forms of competition (strategy, negotiating, PR, winning hearts and minds, eroding any remaining solidarity, crumbling the will of their adversaries, etc. etc)

they made significant progress and garnered victories on all fronts, in all categories,  (wages, health care, new media, contractual protections (actually eroding them!).  They even robbed the SAG actors of the measly 3% raise all the others got which will (not) be compounded over the next decades...

They even got their adversaries to cover their losses by claiming hollow, "victories" and improvements, while they couldn't even get the lousy mileage rate increased from a rate set when autos, insurance, and gas were all affordable

as for a poster child / whipping boy, the Producers even nurtured Alan Rosenberg, egging him on and probably contributing to the failure of his marriage.Sure, the strategy was weak, especially in view of the lack of any real or deep solidarity in the Biz's unions. But SAG has a long history of infighting:

"   His stubbornness and pigheadedness created not only fighting within his own membership, "

nope, he didn't cause the infighting, but he certainly participated, and I'd even say he was courageous.  He kept fighting when most others would have quit.  as was suggested, maybe he should have given up, and given in right after the contract expired.  He could have gotten the same deal that SAG ended up with, and gotten that year's 3% raise retroactive to the expiration date, but unlike the IA leadership, -they rolled over and gave away the health coverage of some yet to be determined, but certainly significant % of the IA membership-  he stuck his neck, and more, out for the membership of SAG, and actually for all those employed in our industry.  He lost, he gets the blame, SAG gets a lousy deal, like the other unions, and the infighting goes on...

on the question of who votes in SAG, this has been a major part of the infighting for years.  when the talk is that only the actors that are actually full time actors should vote, there are a lot of issues, including Federal Labor laws that regulate unions.  I could even compare it to the IA health insurance situation we are facing... how do you decide who gets to vote??  Should IA members who make most of their income on non-union shows, or other types of gigs be denied voting (and don't even get me started on the lack of participation!) and do the typical actors want to be ruled by the big name "High Profile"-and over scale- members ??  the relatively high turnout for the latest SAG vote was still only a small % of the entire membership, just as with the other unions and especially the IATSE.

So, OK, the SAG drama is ended, now everyone will have to complain about all the other excuses for why they aren't working as much as they desire...

[John Coffey]

This guy's not a waiter.

Who says he was?  Asner certainly qualifies as a retiree who derived most of his income from jobs the union represents.  I also happen to agree with much of what he says. 

You must have missed my point.  There are various degrees of groups of people banding together to get their share from corporations.  Some are looser than others in what it takes to belong and join.  SAG is probably made up of more members that do not derive their income from that "union" than most.  It's a problem when they have such power with so little skin in the game.  Can voting rules be changed to include those whose livelihoods depend on their union?  I don't know.  Should they?  Yes. 

In this case, SAG played right into the producers hands.  In the beginning, Rosenberg probably could have got a strike vote.  By waiting, he let the infighting tear them up as the producers simply laid siege, with a series of stall tactics and  causing a time wasting backlash against Doug Allen by placing blame on him.

If there is such a thing as a true union, it would be made up of members who are actually dependent upon the wages and working conditions they fight for.  In this case, as predicted, the de facto strike actually caused more pain to other union craft members and employees at many related businesses, than to the majority of its own members who had other gainful emplyment.  I personally would have been more supportive if they had gone on strike instead of watching the disgusting infighting that did nothing day after day, week after week....  It was a disgrace to the very concept of unionism.  At least the writers took it to the streets and brought a conclusion. 

[Laurence]

No John, I didn't miss your point at all.  I agree with you totally.  Elsewhere there may have been an assertion that the only people who disagreed with the SAG contract proposal were actors who didn't really act.... waiters.  Asner is an example of someone who had very solid reasons for disagreeing with the contract... and who is obviously not a waiter.  I agree with you, John.  And with the Senator, as well.

Laurence

[Philip Perkins]

The guy I called a "waiter" WAS in fact a waiter, and was not Rosenburg.  MY point was that SAG has too many voting members with no real stake in either the union or what it might bring in terms of a living wage for people who actually make their living doing the work the union's contracts were supposed to cover.  I guess the IA may end up the same way, with a lot of members with little stake in the union's future, esp. now that they will be bumped from the health plan.

Philip Perkins

[Richard Lightstone, CAS]

Laurence,

With all due respect you are looking at the current Labour-Management impass with "rose colored" glasses.

First if you are looking for some kind of relief from the Federal Government when they nationalize Health Care - you will be very disappointed. Coming from Canada, where socialized medicine has been in play since the '60's - the system is failing. You cannot tax the citizens enough to pay for it. So what happens is a cut back in both the quality and the amount of health services available. Canada rations health care and the government decides who will get surgery or high cost treatment based on age and survivability tables.

Get ready for this in the USA.

Despite the belief that a Democratic White House and Congress will suddenly turn the NLRB around -- or that nation's attitude towards unions will suddenly go "pro-union"; it won't happen. The economy is not in labour's favor.

Union's have to modernize their negotiating strategies, or they will slowly wither away. It is really up to us to change the direction.

Hard nosed and militant thinking will not cut it any more. Union members have to start thinking about what they voted for in the Federal election in 2008; "Change" - or is it just a slogan?

RL

[Laurence]

Seems to me like you've flipped from your original position but, whatever.... the contracts are all approved and now we suffer the consequences.... or celebrate, depending upon your point of view.

Laurence