Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The upcoming actors union negotiations
USA Network Forums > USA Network Originals > Law & Order: Criminal Intent
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
VDOVault
Well I didn't really want to have to start a thread like this but here goes...

Bad news folks...the two unions that represent actors are not going to negotiate together.

This doesn't necessarily mean there will be an actors strike, but the odds of one happening just went up. sad.gif

This is an extremely complicated story but here is one article from a slightly gossipy website that has a pretty good summary of some of the issues:

Strike News 2008? Actor’s Unions Declaration of War

HOLLYWOOD, CA (Hollywood Today) 3/31/2008 - The dramatic divorce of the two leading American unions for actors over the weekend, on the eve of crucial talks for a new contract with top Hollywood studios and networks, comes with its own trumped up incident to justify tearing the two unions apart.

So to the mysterious sinking of the USS Maine in 1898 used as an excuse for the Spanish American War, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 which sparked World War I and the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 used by the U.S. to justify a ramping up of the War in Vietnam, we can now add the show biz version with the convenient incident – the faux battle over union jurisdiction of the long-running TV soap opera “The Bold and the Beautiful.”

Comparing a union battle in Hollywood to real life wars is a stretch, but it is accurate to say that the decision by AFTRA over the weekend to nullify the 27-year-old Phase One agreement with SAG by which the two guilds negotiate contracts jointly was nothing less than a declaration of war. The battle will be over turf in the new world of converging media. The battle will be fought show by show, which is likely to give producers new leverage in making deals.

That is what scares the activist SAG leadership, who have been beating the drums saying they want an even better deal than the one negotiated on new media by the Directors and Writers. Instead, SAG could find itself playing second fiddle as AFTRA moves to be the first to negotiate separately with the AMPTP, representing major producers and broadcast networks. The current contract with actors expires June 30.

As soon as today, both guilds are expected to be on the phone with the AMPTP lobbying to be the first to start talks. SAG is rightly concerned AFTRA might make a deal that is less than what they want, but that could still force them to make concessions. With the threat that shows can migrate to AFTRA for a better deal, SAG will have to make many more concessions. SAG contends it should go first because its contracts bring in the vast majority of earnings.

However, the AMPTP might well see the wisdom of going into talks with AFTRA first. There is no love lost between the AMPTP and SAG in the wake of the writers 100 day strike. SAG was an early supporter of the WGA job action, and Rosenberg was particularly vocal in his support.

In addition, an attempt to hold the kind of early informal talks between major entertainment company CEOs led by Peter Chernin of News Corp and Robert Iger of Disney that worked with directors and writers appear to have floundered with actors, and has now ended.

This rupture is part of a long term shift that has increasingly pitted the guilds not just against those who want to be non-union, but also against each other. It used to be relatively simple to define an AFTRA show from a SAG show. AFTRA was shot on video or was live TV. SAG was shot on film, whether it was a movie or TV show. Now film is being phased out and both movies and TV shows are increasing shot with electronic media, whether it is recorded on tape, a DVD or in the memory of a powerful computer. While the guilds insist they know how to define which show should be the jurisdiction of which guild, there have been a number of incidents in recent months that show the truth is the opposite.

While AFTRA still represents live news, taped programming and radio and such programs as “The Daily Show” and “Colbert Report” on Comedy Central, “Saturday Night Live” and “The Tonight Show”: on NBC and “The Late Show with David Letterman” on CBS, it has also extended its reach to four dramas and comedies such as “‘Til Death” on Fox and “Rules of Engagement” on CBS.

The skirmishes in this war have already begun. As SAG has tried to unionize reality and game shows, in the end it has been AFTRA or IATSE that has made most of the deals. In other words, faced with the need to affiliate with some union, these producers have opted for the AFTRA contract which is much less expensive for them or in animation a deal with IATSE. Among other things, an AFTRA contract pays lower and fewer residuals to actors.

SAG president Alan Rosenberg called the move by AFTRA a power grab that has been in planning for a long time. He said AFTRA will sell out actors with their low-ball contracts. “I think what AFTRA’s done is unconscionable,” said Rosenberg, “and I’m sick of getting lectures about trust from them. I’m furious about what they’ve done.”

Rosenberg was responding to comments by AFTRA President Roberta Reardon who insisted it was SAG that was trying to smear AFTRA. She called the last straw alleged efforts by SAG to steal away jurisdiction of soap opera “The Bold and the Beautiful.” “We can’t trust SAG,” said Reardon. “Their leaders have engaged in a concerted effort to tarnish AFTRA’s reputation and diminish our standing.”

Actually, it seems that AFTRA is the one who has questions to answer. After months of rancor, the two guilds had come together in recent weeks to determine what they would demand in upcoming negotiations with the AMPTP. Now as the process has finally finished, and it is time to start the actual negotiations with producers, the AFTRA leaders bring up the “Bold & Beautiful” situation. AFTRA treats this as if SAG has done them some great wrong suddenly, even though there is evidence they have known all about the B&B situation for some weeks.

In addition, SAG denies it went after the soap opera in any case. The SAG board over the weekend even passed a resolution making clear they agree that AFTRA has jurisdiction over soap operas, including “The Bold & Beautiful.”

What happened is that an actress on the soap [Susan Flannery who is a member of both AFTRA & SAG] has been passing around a petition which if successful would have stripped AFTRA of its jurisdiction, and opened the door for SAG. There was a meeting by some dissident actors from the show with top SAG officials, but those SAG officials insist all they did was tell the actors to take their complaints to AFTRA. The AFTRA execs now say SAG did not promptly notify them about the meeting, and acted against their interests.

AFTRA officials have been fuming for a year over an attempt by SAG to change the way each union was to be represented in upcoming negotiations under Phase One protocols. Under the deal as it has stood since the 1980s, the two sides have had equal numbers of representatives in the negotiations, even though SAG has larger membership, and has much broader jurisdiction areas.

Under activist leadership on the Hollywood guild board, SAG asked AFTRA to scale back its representation so it was more proportionate. That enraged AFTRA and set in motion a battle over whether they would continue to negotiate jointing.

Phase One is the name given to the process because as long ago as 1981, it was intended to be the first step to a combination of the two guilds into a single union for actors. Instead, in a couple of contentious battles, SAG members have voted down a merger over and over. In fact, the current AFTRA management blames the current SAG leadership for the last failure in 2000, when they provided strong opposition within the guild.

SAG has only recently agreed to go back to the original formula, just to keep the two working together. If AFTRA does their own low ball deal, it will be a nightmare for SAG. Not only would it threaten any additional gains, it might even make it difficult to live up to the promises by which Rosenberg and his group came to power.

Even within SAG there is a split over what to do. The SAG New York board sides with AFTRA and blames the Hollywood board for fermenting problems with their demands to change Phase One. For years there has been friction between the SAG board in Hollywood and its counterpart in New York, but things seemed to have calmed down. Now that battle is renewed as well.

This has to be good news for the AMPTP and producers looking to cut deals that will save them money and pump up their profits at the expense of highly paid actors. It may also be the beginning of a long term battle for jurisdiction and market share between SAG and AFTRA that could overtime change the balance of power in Hollywood. Instead of being focused on going up against the producers, the guilds will now be sidetracked by their own intra-guild warfare.

Think of SAG as a big department store that has fine merchandise at premium prices. Then think of AFTRA as the Walmart store coming to town and skimming off cost conscious shoppers. Over time that erodes the position of SAG, and could even threaten the guilds existence as a powerful force in show business. Remember Robinsons, May Stores and Gimbels department stores. They are no longer around to tell the story of what can happen when a competitor undercuts their economic model. Applied to Hollywood, that has to send a chill through SAG.

source: http://www.hollywoodtoday.net/?p=4258

FYI Law & Order: Criminal Intent is a SAG show

The Vault
ciaddict
It makes me so SAD that we need this thread. sad.gif
Bubba_Bridges
Hi Bubba here, I'm sadden to read this. sad.gif
LOCIFan2
Here are some links to good sources of information on Entertainment Industry Negotiations/Strikes:

(Tip for those less Tech-Saavy: If the link doesn't work with the mouse click, try holding down the <alt> key while clicking the mouse button.)

CONTRACT DEADLINES & STRIKE DATES

WGA (WGAE & WGAW) Writer's Guild of America Strike: 11/02/07 – 02/12/08
SAG – Screen Actors Guild – Contract Expires 06/30/08
(AFTRA-American Federation of TV & Radio Artists may also expire on 06/30/08)

This is a list of links to the home pages of the Various Unions/Guilds and News Sources involved in/concerned with the Labor Negotiations in the TV/Film Industry. This way we can each "interpret" the actual source material instead of some reporter's/commentator's "rendering" of it.

UNIONS/GUILDS:

AMPTP (Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers)
http://www.amptp.org/

WGAE (writers Guild of America, East)
http://www.wgaeast.org/

The Writers Guild of America, East, is a labor union representing professional writers in film, television and radio.

Our members write for animation, for entertainment, for network and local news operations, for independent stations in major cities, and for any other media production companies which are signatory to Guild agreements.

Writers Guild East members tend to define themselves by the nature of their writing, the organizations by which they are employed and the contracts, or minimum basic agreements, under which they work.

Sixty-six percent of Guild East members work under Freelance contracts and minimum basic agreements as Motion Picture Screenwriters; TV Dramatic Writers; TV Episodic Series Writers; TV Daytime Serial Writers; TV and Radio Documentary and Public Affairs Writers; TV Comedy Writers; Children's TV Writers, Sitcom Writers; Animation Writers and more.

In many cases members may also be "hyphenates," which is to say they may be writer- directors, or writer-producers, or writer-actors or writer-director-producers.

Thirty-three percent of Guild East members work under Staff contracts, or collective bargaining agreements as News Writers; News Editors; Desk Assistants; Graphic Artists; Continuity Writers; On-Air Promotion Writers; Researchers; News Production Assistants; Production Assistants; News Assignment Deskpersons; Viewers; Producers.

WGAW (Writers Guild of America, West)
http://www.wga.org/

The Writers Guild of America, West (WGAW) and the Writers Guild of America, East (WGAE) represent writers in the motion picture, broadcast, cable, and new media industries in both entertainment and news.

SAG (Screen Actors Guild)
http://www.sag.org/

Screen Actors Guild is the nation's largest labor union representing working actors.
Established in 1933, SAG has a rich history in the American labor movement, from standing up to studios to break long-term engagement contracts in the 1940s to fighting for artists' rights amid the digital revolution sweeping the entertainment industry in the 21st century.

The Guild exists to enhance actors' working conditions, compensation and benefits and to be a powerful, unified voice on behalf of artists' rights.

SAG is Nationwide
W
ith 20 branches nationwide, SAG represents nearly 120,000 actors who work in motion pictures, television, commercials, industrials, video games, Internet and all new media formats.

SAG is a proud affiliate of the AFL-CIO.

AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists)
http://www.aftra.org/aftra/aftra.htm

The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) is a national labor union representing over 70,000 performers, journalists and other artists working in the entertainment and news media.

AFTRA's scope of representation covers broadcast, public and cable television (news, sports and weather; drama and comedy, soaps, talk and variety shows, documentaries, children's programming, reality and game shows); radio (news, commercials, hosted programs); sound recordings (CDs, singles, Broadway cast albums, audio books); "non-broadcast" and industrial material as well as Internet and digital programming.

AFTRA's membership includes an array of talent - sound recording membership includes artists who bring pop, rock, country, classical, folk, jazz, comedy, Latin, hip hop, rap and R&B to the world. AFTRA members perform in television and radio advertising, non-broadcast video, audio books and messaging, and provide their skills for developing technologies such as interactive games and Internet material.

DGA (Director's Guild of America)
http://www.dga.org/negotiations/index.php


IATSE (International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists & Allied Crafts of the United States, its Territories, and Canada, AFL-CIO, CLC)
http://www.iatse-intl.org/images/index_

NATPE (National Association of Television Program Executives)
http://www.natpe.org/


ENTERTAINMENT NEWS PUBLICATIONS, PROGRAMS & WEBSITES:

Variety (Homepage)
http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=hottopic&id=2821

Variety (Special Writers Strike Page)
http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=hottopic&id=2821

Entertainment Tonight
http://www.etonline.com/

E! News
http://www.eonline.com/index.jsp?uuid=acd2fdad-2258-42b5-a050-634bf761b9f0&edition=us

Hollywood Today
http://www.hollywoodtoday.net/top/top1.jpg

People Newswire
http://www.people.com/people/news/0,,,00.html


STRIKE – SPECIFIC SITES:

A few sites (critics) have created a Special Page/Thread dedicated only to Strike News.
None related to SAG/AFTRA as there is no strike as of 03/31/08 and we hope there won't be one (or more).


TELEVISION/MOVIE CRITICS & COMMENTATORS:

If found, the Link posted is for the individual critic/commentator's archive; so as to give access to all columns, rather than just the current day's posting.

Rick Kushman, TV Critic for The Sacramento Bee (SacBee)
http://www.sacbee.com/157/index.html

Tim Goodman, TV Critic for The San Francisco Chronicle (SFGate)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/search/columnists.cgi?waisdbname=/chronicle/&byline=Tim+Goodman

Charlie McCollum, TV Critic for San Jose Mercury
http://www.mercurynews.com/charliemccollum

Chuck Barney, (TV Freak) TV Critic for Contra Costa Times
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tvfreak/

Robert Bianco, (Critic's Corner) TV Critic for USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/criticscorner/archive.htm











VDOVault
Believe me I am not happy today to have to post news like this.

I have made a lot of friends who happen to be actors because of the writer's strike (many of whom you and I have never heard of before now and are either struggling to make a living as an actor or fighting hard to hold onto a middle class lifestyle as a working actor). So this news is something I am taking very personally. Plus once again the entire team that makes CI is dependent upon the outcome of these two sets of negotiations which makes this personal again.

However this is something we are going to have to deal with so here we go...

I though I'd post a link to a now 'old' podcast made my new friend Tanja Barnes who is a Los Angeles based background actor (aka an 'extra'). Tanja is what you would call a 'dual card holder' or someone who is a member of both SAG & AFTRA. You won't find Tanja's credits at the IMDB.com (the rules of IMDB say that background credits don't count) but you will find some really good interviews with

Anyway this is an interview that Tanja did with SAG's president Alan Rosenberg (starts at about 6:20 into the podcast) and with SAG board member Valerie Harper on January 28th 2008 while the writers were still out on strike...this was a SAG/WGA unity day picket.

You will hear a little discussion of some issues that SAG has with AFTRA that lead to this split from the interview with Valerie Harper (which starts at about 12 minutes into the podcast) but you will also hear that the actors have many of the same issues as the writers did.

http://wgastrike2007.blogspot.com/2008/01/...interviews.html

The Vault
VDOVault
I keep a bookmark file of SAG & AFTRA news stories at:
http://del.icio.us/vdovault

Take a look at anything I tag with "AFTRA" or "SAG"

The Vault
VDOVault
Here is an email sent to SAG members regarding the split between SAG & AFTRA

"From: SAG President Alan Rosenberg
Date: March 30, 2008 8:08:40 PM PDT
To: SAG Members
Subject: AFTRA ENDED JOINT BARGAINING RELATIONSHIP WITH SAG

Dear Screen Actors Guild members,

You will hear many things over the next few days about AFTRA's decision to effectively terminate our Phase One joint bargaining relationship. We have been jointly bargaining several contracts with AFTRA since 1981 and the AFTRA board voted yesterday to end that relationship (under the Phase One Agreement) and forge ahead without SAG.

AFTRA HAS THREE TELEVISION SHOWS UNDER THIS CONTRACT AND THEY DON'T COVER MOTION PICTURES.

As your President, I feel it is important that you have the facts.

AFTRA leaders claim…That SAG attempted to "raid" its jurisdiction and to "campaign" to help The Bold & The Beautiful daytime drama actors decertify from AFTRA.

FACT: Actors from the show, who are also SAG members, asked to meet with us. We heard their complaints of extreme dissatisfaction with AFTRA, AND DIRECTED THEM TO TALK WITH AFTRA. We did not have a campaign of any kind.

AFTRA leaders claim… The Bold & The Beautiful incident was "the last straw," but waited more than two weeks to raise the issue. Instead, the day before the joint SAG/AFTRA board meeting, they alerted the press (not SAG) and accused us of poaching. Two days earlier, they had participated in our two-day national joint Wages & Working conditions meeting where members of both unions VOTED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the proposal package. Didn't the "last straw" matter then?

AFTRA never has stated how it plans to come to the aid of the B &B actors. They are too busy blaming us for the problem. Institution first, members last.

FACT: SAG IS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY WAY IN ORGANIZING DAYTIME DRAMA ACTORS. While we have great respect for daytime actors, this is AFTRA's area. In fact, the SAG national board passed a motion Saturday morning to assure AFTRA (as AFTRA requested) that SAG will abide by the AFL CIO rules regulating raiding.

FACT: Despite this expression of good faith and reassurance from SAG, AFTRA leaders voted to "suspend" Phase One and go it alone. They marched into our board meeting, said they would not be bargaining jointly, and left. The joint board meeting to approve the proposal package for joint bargaining never even took place.

AFTRA leaders claim …SAG has undertaken a campaign to discredit them.

FACT: AFTRA bargained cable deals at rates lower than SAG minimums and waived residuals. They fully admit this and are now getting backlash from members who are wondering where their residuals went. AFTRA must be accountable for granting these waivers to the contracts we have fought hard to achieve. Again, how is this problem SAG's fault? Will they now go bargain these sub-standard contracts for primetime network/pay TV programs and lower the bar for all SAG actors in the process?

AFTRA claims …that SAG Hollywood leaders are looking for a strike.

FACT: Not true. Nobody wants a strike, especially after the 100 day WGA strike. Elected SAG leaders across the country want to be strong on your behalf at the bargaining table. YOU elected your leadership. You elected me to achieve the best possible wages and working conditions. While the DGA and WGA made deals, we are not directors or writers. We are actors, and actors have different issues that are not in the DGA and WGA deals.

What's next?

We will begin negotiations. We believe the AMPTP will be eager to do so, especially since motion picture start dates are critical. Your national board approved the proposal package yesterday that so many members contributed to during our W & W process. We are ready to negotiate.

Members are our first priority, not the institution. As your president, I vow to continue to work hard to improve the lives of all actors and their families. You deserve nothing less."

And here is AFTRA's news release on the split


American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
NEWS RELEASE
March 30, 2008

-- AFTRA National Board Overwhelmingly Approves to Suspend Phase One Joint Bargaining with SAG and Makes Plan to Negotiate Primetime TV Contract on Its Own

-- Board also unanimously approved the AFTRA Network Television Code and the AFTRA Sound Recordings Code, and adopted procedures for membership ratification

LOS ANGELES -- The National Board of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists -- a national union of more than more 70,000 performers, journalists, broadcasters, recording artists, and other talent working in the entertainment and news media -- overwhelmingly voted Saturday in favor of suspending the joint bargaining process under the Phase One agreement with the Screen Actors Guild and plans to negotiate the Primetime TV contract with employers on its own.

"AFTRA's leadership believes that our union must devote its energies first and foremost to working on behalf of performers," said Roberta Reardon, National President of AFTRA. "During the past year, AFTRA has fought hard and expended an enormous amount of time, energy, and resources to maintain the integrity of our Phase One joint bargaining process with Screen Actors Guild so we could sit across the table from the industry with total and unequivocal unity. Unfortunately, SAG leadership has made this impossible.

"For the past year, SAG leadership in Hollywood has engaged in a relentless campaign of disinformation and disparagement, culminating in a recent attempt to decertify an AFTRA daytime soap opera. As a result of this continued and ongoing behavior by SAG leadership, which at its core harms all working performers and the labor movement, we find ourselves unable to have confidence in their ability to live up to the principles of partnership and union solidarity. AFTRA believes it must now devote its full energies to working on behalf of performers, and not wasting time assessing whether our partner is being honest with us.

"The board's approval of a suspension of Phase One -- not a termination -- was mindful of the fact that there many among SAG's leadership that are as troubled by the events that have led us to this point as we are. We are hopeful that someday, the historic trust between these two organizations can be rebuilt -- in the best interests of all performers," said Reardon.

Given the suspension of joint bargaining with SAG, the AFTRA National Board cancelled the joint meeting with the SAG board and instead continued its special session.

After a review of the recommendations from the AFTRA-SAG Joint Wages and Working Conditions Committee, the National Board unanimously approved the proposals en banc and without amendment to serve as the official AFTRA proposal package for negotiations with employers on the AFTRA Exhibit A to the Network Code that covers primetime dramatic programming. The National Board also approved the Negotiating Committee appointed by AFTRA National President Roberta Reardon, with Los Angeles actor and AFTRA National Treasurer Matt Kimbrough as chair.

The AFTRA National Board also approved tentative agreements reached with employers for the AFTRA Network Television Code and the AFTRA Sound Recordings Code and adopted procedures for membership ratification of the contracts.

In unanimously approving the tentative agreement with the four major television networks and producers on the AFTRA Network TV Code, the National Board noted that the new agreement contains solid increases in wage rates for all categories, increased contributions for the AFTRA Health and Retirement plan, and addresses discrete issues affecting every category of performer. In addition, the agreement preserves significant principles which are a hallmark of AFTRA contracts -- such as universal coverage of
background performers and contract security for daytime serial contract players.

"This agreement is a major milestone for AFTRA as substantial gains in wages and working conditions for performers were successfully achieved," said Reardon, who also served as chair of the Network Code Negotiating Committee. "This contract is extraordinary for performers and made significant progress on many fronts, including importantly new media jurisdiction and compensation."

The AFTRA Network TV Code covers actors and all on-camera and off-camera talent on all forms of television programming: syndicated dramas, daytime serials, game shows, talk shows, variety and musical programs, news, sports, reality shows, and promotional announcements. Programs covered by the Code include diverse programs such as "Good Morning America," "20/20," "American Idol," "The View," "The Tonight Show," "Late Show with David Letterman," "Oprah," "The Price is Right," "Deal or No Deal," "Days of Our Lives," "The Bold and the Beautiful," All My Children, "Cake," "Saturday Night Live," "Entertainment Tonight," and "Survivor."

The National Board voted to recommend the agreement in a mail referendum ballot to the entire AFTRA membership.

The National Board also unanimously approved the tentative agreement for the AFTRA Sound Recordings Code -- the national contract with the recording industry, which covers royalty artists and session singers who work with the more than 1,200 recording companies, including the four major labels -- EMI, Sony BMG, Universal Music Group, and Warner -- and most of their subsidiary labels. In addition to popular music in all genres, the Sound Recordings Code covers classical recordings, Broadway cast albums, Latin recordings, and spoken word recordings, including audio books.

"This is a breakthrough agreement for AFTRA members," said Randall Himes, AFTRA Assistant National Executive Director for Sound Recordings and co-lead negotiator for AFTRA. "The members of the AFTRA negotiating committee -- session and royalty singers, rap artists, and other performers across all fields of recorded music from pop and hip-hop to Latin and country -- worked diligently to achieve this contract for their fellow AFTRA members. The challenge of negotiating while the industry is confronting both a digital transition and rampant piracy underscores the remarkable work of the committee members in keeping their focus."

Highlights of the agreement include wage increases for session performers,improvements in health and retirement coverage for royalty artists, and a new formula for compensation on digital downloads.

In recommending approval of the tentative agreement, the National Board determined that any AFTRA member in good standing who had earnings from the Sound Recordings Code since July 1, 2002, will be eligible to vote on the contract.

In other action:

-- Responding to the petition from more than 1,400 performers to define "affected members" for voting on contracts, the National Board authorized National President Roberta Reardon to appoint a committee, to be confirmed by the Administrative Committee, to review the so-called "Working Actors Voice" proposal and report recommendations to the National Board.

-- Recognizing the work needed to restructure the AFTRA Non-Broadcast/Industrial Code and to reorganize members and signatory employers, the National Board granted authority to the AFTRA Non-Broadcast/Industrial Steering Committee to seek an extension to the contract that expires April 30, 2008.

The AFTRA National Board is next scheduled to meet in a face-to-face plenary session in Los Angeles on June 6 and 7.

________________________________________________________________________________

The Vault
flashymom
Well, this sucks! Sucks big, rotten, smelly eggs!
genpro65
Thanks for the thread. I do have a somewhat simple question, seeing that LOCI is affected.
It seems there's more at stake here than renewing contracts for actors. It seems that high-tech has had a big effect on the way these unions value and define the business in general. Pardon my ignorance, please, but it sounds to me like the actors are being treated like "collateral damage" in the midst of someone else's quarrel. I'll need to read some more but "is this a potential actors' strike, or just another 'hockey fight' where everyone else throws their gloves down on the ice, waiting for the refs to 'break it up' so they can finish the game?"
VDOVault
QUOTE (genpro65 @ Apr 1 2008, 12:24 AM) *
Thanks for the thread. I do have a somewhat simple question, seeing that LOCI is affected.
It seems there's more at stake here than renewing contracts for actors. It seems that high-tech has had a big effect on the way these unions value and define the business in general. Pardon my ignorance, please, but it sounds to me like the actors are being treated like "collateral damage" in the midst of someone else's quarrel. I'll need to read some more but "is this a potential actors' strike, or just another 'hockey fight' where everyone else throws their gloves down on the ice, waiting for the refs to 'break it up' so they can finish the game?"


Hi genpro65

This is an excellent question and I'll do my best to answer it

The actors unions have a lot of factions within them...there are groups within each union that have different political approaches to issues, there are groups within each union that because of their geographical locations see certain issues differently (one such issue is 'runaway production' which I'll define in another post because it's a bit complex). These factions are nothing if not passionate about what they do and what directions they want to see their unions go.

The actors unions also have something that takes place in a lot of organizations going on. There is a tiny minority of the members who get interested in seeking elected office within the unions or sitting on their various committees or helping to set union policies and agendas. Then there is the vast majority of union members who are either nominally informed as to what is going on within their unions or extremely ignorant about what their unions typically do. This is seen in election turnouts (as I understand it at most 8,000 SAG members out of a possible 120,000 voted in the elections for SAG's officers and board of directors) and in times when there aren't big issues like pending contract negotiations. In fact a lot of actors are like this one actor who keeps a blog who are mostly out there so busy hustling for work that deeper union involvement is not something they prioritize.

I highly recommend that anyone who has ever dreamed of being an actor read this blog to get a feel for just how aggressive and proactive you have to be to chase down and secure work opportunities.

Stephon Fuller
Stephon's World http://www.stephonfuller.blogspot.com/
IMDB credits (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0298351/)

So assuming that Stephon is a typical person pursuing acting as a career you can see where he might not have a lot of time to spare normally to keep up with what the actors unions are up to. What is atypical about Stephon is how he is committed to sharing with the rest of the world what his schedule and strategies for securing acting work is like but I think you will find the blog eye-opening.

Another thing about the actors unions: You don't get paid anything to be a union officer or board member or committee member. And you live in the same iffy economy that the rest of America lives in plus since you're an actor by definition the jobs are that much harder to secure so you have to balance the work you do with the union with work that pays you. In the case of actors, that is usually a combination of acting jobs and your backup work, the second job that is usually most of your economic support until you 'make it' as an actor.

So the actors who are quarreling stridently with one another over union issues are in the minority while the vast majority of actors are not involved in the quarrels.

Are there some very personal and vicious attacks going on between very heavily involved union members? Absolutely.
Do these quarrels serve the entire union membership's best interests? I don't think they do.
Would I like to see the quarreling stop? Absolutely.
Would I like to see the union leadership replaced with more dispassionate but equally well informed members? If such members existed, sure. But because only a few union members have done the work of studying union issues, and even fewer of them have the time and the willingness to commit themselves to this process, I question whether replacements can be found. So I'm not sure they could replace their very partisan leaderships, especially not this late in the game, and especially when it's always been the same people willing to run for office or serve as board members or on committees.

So yes the actors as a whole are being collaterally damaged by recent events in the unions. But I don't think that there's an easy way to stop the damage at this point short of everyone working to massively rein in their egos and their passions and their hurt feelings. That's tough to do...it's possible but it's challenging because it's such an individually controlled task.

But there still is a real potential for a strike regardless of whether the actors let passions and feelings drive this next set of negotiations with the AMPTP

The 'high tech' issues are still there for the actors. Until they get another contract worked out, they will be nominally paid for DVDs and for paid for downloads (ie from places like Unbox and iTunes) and not paid at all for streaming media. Those are the exact same issues as the writers and the directors faced in their negotiations with the AMPTP. And actors need residuals more than directors and writers do because historically residuals comprise the greatest portion of the actors income.

The actors have one big issue in common with the crew unions...something called runaway production. I think all US based acting unions and crew unions will agree that anytime a movie or a TV series gets made outside the USA, the opportunities for American actors and crew members to work go down. So most everyone can agree that this kind of 'outsourcing' of entertainment industry jobs is a form of production that has 'runaway' to another country. This was not a pivotal issue for writers...thanks to technology you can write a script anywhere and usually once the script is written the writer's job is done (this is less true for TV show staff writers than for film writers, but that's because TV show writers typically take on production jobs on the TV shows in addition to their writing jobs).

Where the definition of 'runaway production' starts to get muddy has a lot to do with where you live. If you are a Los Angeles based actor or crew member, you tend to think any production that is not filming in Los Angeles is 'runaway' production. If you are a New York based actor or crew member, you tend to think any production that is not filming in NYC is 'runaway' production. And of course other regions of the USA are also trying to attract film & TV production to their areas. So there are some pitched battles in the unions over what 'runaway production' really means and who is being hurt by it.
You can get American entertainment industry unions to agree that any production shooting outside the USA (like in Canada or Mexico or the UK) is mostly bad for every American entertainment industry union member, but to extend the argument to smaller and smaller US regions makes for some union in-fighting. I think with the fall of the US dollar relative to other currencies (part of our economic bad times right now means it's becoming cheaper to make stuff in the USA) that some of the non-US production will come home but technology is making it more possible to make films and TV shows anywhere and so regions are going to be played against one another for future productions. This of course is not necessarily good for union solidarity.

There is another actor union specific issue and that is product placement but since this post is really long already I'll save it for another post.

So it's not a question of there being a 'hockey fight' or a 'potential actors strike'. The 'hockey fight' is a reality (and with some of the players it's more of a decades long Hatfield and McCoy type feud) and because of the virtriol of the hockey fight, it makes the possibility for an actors strike go up, unless and until some of the scrappiest players choose to put down their sticks and their fists and refocus on getting everyone a good deal.

Hope this answers your question adequately
The Vault
VDOVault
Some stuff about product placement to watch...it's a documentary called Behind The Scenes Hollywood Goes Hypercommercial from 2000 and it's less than 45 minutes long

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxiWsJFrVUw
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv79rMpSlF4
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqGe7ILjS34
Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dYp9yXuWd4
Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjQ052lBXow

The Vault
spookycc
QUOTE (flashymom @ Mar 31 2008, 02:38 PM) *
Well, this sucks! Sucks big, rotten, smelly eggs!


Too effin' true, flashymom.

How many eps will LOCI have in the can before June 30, if Purgatory films in early April?

Sigh... sad.gif
DonnaLJo
QUOTE (VDOVault @ Apr 1 2008, 11:47 AM) *
Some stuff about product placement to watch...it's a documentary called Behind The Scenes Hollywood Goes Hypercommercial from 2000 and it's less than 45 minutes long

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxiWsJFrVUw
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv79rMpSlF4
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqGe7ILjS34
Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dYp9yXuWd4
Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjQ052lBXow

The Vault


Wow Vault!! That was very interesting & enlightening. I never really noticed how "in bed" producers & advertisers were, or how blatantly products have been incorporated in films & television.

As many know, there is some product placement on CI, especially the huge red Coke machine in the Major Case entrance area. Ross pops a Coke in "Masquerade", interrupting Goren mid sentence. And we see Eames popping Skittles into her mouth.

I also remember a close up of the Ford logo on a tire in a recent episode. I think it was "Self Made." wink.gif
Jryan
If it helps I will offer myself to negotiate with VDO, I am willing to do what it takes to get him to work. wink.gif
spookycc
QUOTE (Jryan @ Apr 1 2008, 05:35 PM) *
If it helps I will offer myself to negotiate with VDO, I am willing to do what it takes to get him to work. wink.gif


You are SO noble, Captain. wink.gif
hullbound
QUOTE (spookycc @ Apr 1 2008, 06:31 PM) *
You are SO noble, Captain. wink.gif


and selfless
KimberlyTaylor
QUOTE (Jryan @ Apr 1 2008, 05:35 PM) *
If it helps I will offer myself to negotiate with VDO, I am willing to do what it takes to get him to work. wink.gif


Ha!!
jcsavestheday
I wonder how this will affect Chris Noth. From what I understand he is a dual member...I wonder if it would cause tension...
genpro65
QUOTE (jcsavestheday @ Apr 1 2008, 11:15 PM) *
I wonder how this will affect Chris Noth. From what I understand he is a dual member...I wonder if it would cause tension...
Thanks for the reply. 'Just got another chance to sit still long enough. 'Will follow the "bread crumbs." You know, I'm too curious, at this point, I can only imagine anyone's response with "dual memberships." I'm watching a remotely similar plot unfold (more like unravel) in transportation and utilities. Exciting times..... 10-10
jcsavestheday
QUOTE (jcsavestheday @ Apr 1 2008, 11:15 PM) *
I wonder how this will affect Chris Noth. From what I understand he is a dual member...I wonder if it would cause tension...


QUOTE (genpro65 @ Apr 2 2008, 7:44AM)
Thanks for the reply. 'Just got another chance to sit still long enough. 'Will follow the "bread crumbs." You know, I'm too curious, at this point, I can only imagine anyone's response with "dual memberships." I'm watching a remotely similar plot unfold (more like unravel) in transportation and utilities. Exciting times..... 10-10




added quotes for clarification...
VDOVault
QUOTE (Jryan @ Apr 1 2008, 05:35 PM) *
If it helps I will offer myself to negotiate with VDO, I am willing to do what it takes to get him to work. wink.gif


Well it's not VDO you're going to have to negotiate with directly...it's probably Nick Counter of the AMPTP and the various heads of studios and networks (whom I have taken to calling 'moguls' to save on typing). A lot of the actors issues are the same as the writers were: not getting paid enough for DVD residuals or the downloads we pay to get from places like Unbox and iTunes and not getting paid at all for streaming media.

There are some unique to actors issues like product placement (my big deal with product placement is I don't want VDO, KE, CN, EB, JN to have to take on pimping or hawking Coke and Skittles etc especially if a) they aren't getting paid anything extra for it while at the same time b ) actors like Stephon Fuller who barely makes his living as an actor can't book as many commercial jobs because the moguls are making the casts of the shows do 'in show' commercials for free. I like the idea of having options open for actors who do want to make their living at strictly commercials and actors who want to stay out of product promotion and just tell stories in films and movies which I think is most of the cast of CI and why the threads here on which ads VDO and KE might do are interesting so long as they're just us speculating and not something the actors are forced to do in show and for no extra pay some day. And for the record I am willing to pay a little more to keep the commercials from creeping into everything...I like having a few ad free/extremely limited ad zones in my life.

But there can be a delegation of fans and viewers who support VDO and all of the actors on CI (or all actors for that matter) by letting the moguls know how we feel about the actors issues. Personally I don't think the actors are being all that unreasonable in their demands (the actors want to close that 17 day or 24 day window for residual free streaming/online media and they want to bring down the budget threshhold for what is union covered work for made for new media material that the writers established with their deal...a lot of professional films can get made for new media for far less than $15,000 a minute...the budget on Quarterlife was more like $2,000 or $3,000 a minute and that show was bought by NBC). There are many in the media who want to make the actors out to be bad people for asserting themselves on these points but seriously the same way the idea of the middle class actor is going away is a lot like the rest of the world...the poor are getting poorer, the middle class is fighting not to fall into poverty and a very few people at the top are getting incomprehensibly rich.

I am not pulling the support I gave to the writers from the actors because that would be hypocritical of me, because I understand that without a decent deal for everyone who works on CI it won't stay in production, and because I think the moguls are still wrong to not go ahead and give the actors a lot of what they want because relatively speaking they are not asking for ridiculous and frivolous things.

Anyway I was going to conclude with something funny or clever about VDO for you Jryan but lately I'm not in a joking mood on this. Recent events with the actors negotiations have been painful for me to watch plus look at where the economy is going. It wasn't the writers or the actors or the crew that put the overall economy into trouble, it was the cronies of the Hollywood moguls who did a poor job running the mortgage companies and banks (and the stories of the bonuses and salaries they made and are trying to keep while their employees get fired, shareholders get ripped off and people lose their houses or the value they thought they had built up in them really gets me going).

It's that kind of completely unreasonable mindset that keeps me motivated to fight.

Getting off the soapbox for now...

The Vault
VDOVault
QUOTE (jcsavestheday @ Apr 2 2008, 12:15 AM) *
I wonder how this will affect Chris Noth. From what I understand he is a dual member...I wonder if it would cause tension...


It is already causing a lot of tension for the 44,000 members of both unions (the dual members or dual card holders).

We are pretty far down a path of mutually assured destruction of both unions.

In fact if SAG's leadership wanted to retalliate against AFTRA, there is a provision in SAG's constitution that can force dual card holders to pick one and only one union to belong to.

I don't think that provision was originally conceived of as a way to put AFTRA out of business, I think it was to keep the people on the other side of the union transaction (whom I call the moguls) from creating a fake actors union that was pro studio to get around federal labor laws...if you read up on SAG's history there was such a union that the studios created in the late 1920s or early 1930s, but the faux union really did nothing much to benefit actors (who in those days didn't have the right to get fed on set and couldn't control their work hours at all) and it didn't stop the actors in the 1930s from forming SAG anyway (and by the way TV had not been invented when SAG first formed).

However if things get really ugly the 44,000 dual card holders (who mostly belong to both unions to expand their work opportunities and to try to improve their chances at getting affordable health insurance and a pension of some kind) could be forced to choose only one union.

I think the current SAG leadership is activist (or pro active about getting the actors more in their next contracts and the sooner the better) and certainly upset about having to negotiate with the AMPTP alone but I don't think they would pursue this option unless they absolutely had to because there is a chance that all 44,000 members would drop SAG and go to AFTRA, effectively making SAG the smaller union.

But it could happen...ever since I was surprised at the last minute decision by AFTRA choosing to not negotiate with SAG against the AMPTP I have learned not to rule out anything happening with the actors.

I wish they could confine their mission of 'bringing the world drama' to just movies and TV shows...it sure would help improve my blood pressure and my sleep habits wink.gif

The Vault
VDOVault
And the surprises keep on coming...

SAG is going to be the first union to negotiate with the AMPTP, or at least they were the first union to announce dates.

Here is the negotiations schedule for the AMPTP

April 7th IATSE, the union that represents many crew members will negotiate with the AMPTP. IATSE's current deal doesn't expire until August of 2009, but the rumor is that their leader Tom Short who is expected to retire soon wants his name to be on whatever deal can be made with the moguls. Lots of people have issues with Tom Short and are questioning whether he'll make a good deal for IASTE members this time but we'll skip discussing that for now.

April 15th SAG will negotiate first with the AMPTP. This is a surprise because as soon as AFTRA announced that it was not going to work with SAG in these negotiations, the AMPTP put out a brief press release that said the AMPTP was looking forward to negotiating with AFTRA and SAG was not at all mentioned in the press release. And yet the AMPTP chose to talk with SAG first. Curious...

April 28 AFTRA will start negotiating with the AMPTP. This is also a surprise because SAG only has two weeks to 'go it alone' in negotiations. If SAG doesn't get a deal in two weeks AFTRA could either get their deal first (and the popular wisdom has it that AFTRA will take a lesser deal than SAG) or more amusingly the two unions could actually tax the AMPTP's negotiators with having to deal with two sets of demands at the same time (my strategy: if I'm AFTRA I wait to hear what SAG asks for, then ask for *more*, forcing the AMPTP to take a SAG deal and getting better than expected terms for myself...but I don't know if AFTRA is thinking this way or not...I can hope though)

This is going to be an interesting month even though we don't have any new CI episodes to watch.

The Vault
flashymom
QUOTE (VDOVault @ Apr 3 2008, 07:22 AM) *
I wish they could confine their mission of 'bringing the world drama' to just movies and TV shows...it sure would help improve my blood pressure and my sleep habits wink.gif

The Vault



For the blood pressure: prayer and deep breathing. For sleep -- running in the mornings and Ambien at night. wink.gif
VDOVault
QUOTE (flashymom @ Apr 3 2008, 09:23 AM) *
For the blood pressure: prayer and deep breathing. For sleep -- running in the mornings and Ambien at night. wink.gif


For the blood pressure I call friends and either vent or talk about something else. I also go make myself something good but healthy to eat if I'm hungry or go and pet the cat or get outside and take in some nature for a few minutes.

For sleep, the communicate with friends before bed thing works well. I also will watch a movie on TCM (especially if I know all of its writers and actors have already passed on rolleyes.gif ) or read a book.

The Vault
ciaddict
Bump. Don't want this one to fall off the first page.
VDOVault
I am of the mindset that no news is good news on this front...we have had a couple of quiet days and I am glad for them.

Starting with Monday's IATSE (a union that represents many crew members) negotiations though things could get bumpy sad.gif

The Vault
VDOVault
Here's some quick updates on the Hollywood labor situation

First of all IATSE one of the unions that represents many crew members starts negotiating with the AMPTP today. Their contract doesn't expire for 16 months but that's how IATSE's leader Tom Short wants to do things

There's a Variety article on IATSE's talks at http://www.variety.com/article/VR111798360...yid=15&cs=1

Second, starting on April 15th, the same day SAG is scheduled to start its negotiations with the AMPTP, there is going to be a multi day multi labor union event in the Los Angeles area called "Hollywood To The Docks - The Fight For Good Jobs". Both SAG members and AFTRA members are expected to participate in the events which include a 28 mile walk from Hollywood to the docks at San Pedro. Details are at http://www.hollywoodtothedocks.com/

There is some data on the Hollywood To The Docks website that suggests that Los Angeles actors average yearly wages in 2007 were around $30,000

Third there is a really excellent article that actor and economic analyst Ben Stein put in the New York Times that I will include here on just how high executive pay has become and how this not only has labor union members and rank and file employees upset, it also has the exectives' bosses -- the shareholders of the companies they work for -- very concerned.

"“Your basic human is not such a hot item.” — Rachel Epstein (my sister)

START with the obvious. Executive pay at the top levels in this country is stunning in its size and its rate of climb.

According to the Congressional Research Service, average pay for chief executives stood at 179 times average worker pay in 2005, up from a multiple of 90 in 1994. Adjusted for inflation, average worker pay rose by a total of only 8 percent from 1995 to 2005; median pay for chief executives at the 350 largest companies rose 150 percent.

Top executives’ pay as a ratio of their employers’ earnings has also skyrocketed in the last 15 years. And these executives are paid far more than their counterparts at companies of comparable size in Britain or Japan. How did this happen? How did pay grow so fast at the top?

It starts with several corporate governance factors and then goes into psychosocial factors. For one thing, although a company’s stockholders by every legal precept own the company, they have almost no say in how their employees, the executives, are paid. Instead, the pay of the top executives is set by the board, usually the compensation committee. The directors are elected by the stockholders via proxies — those things you get in the mail and then throw away. Thus, in effect, the board is selected by top management, usually by the C.E.O. himself. Once a director is on the board, there is only the slightest of chances that he will leave, except for death or old age or illness.

To be a member of the board of a large company is a little example of paradise. You get good pay for just sitting in a meeting and listening to summary presentations. You get insurance and a pension. You can go to luxurious resorts and play golf. What the heck are security lines? You fly in private jets.

Sometimes, you get stock options, and these can be meaningful.

In other words, it’s nice to be the director of a public company. How do you keep your job? You are really nice to the person who put you in that job. You don’t know the little stockholder in Muncie who might have 500 shares. But you do know the guy who repeatedly reappoints you for your post at the directors’ table. The little stockholder cannot do a thing for you, but the boss can.

When it comes to compensation, you want him to be really happy. It doesn’t matter how well he’s doing, unless he’s wreaking havoc and you may be sued. It doesn’t matter if the stock price has languished. You want what’s best for No. 1, and that means what’s best for Mr. Big.

You hire a compensation consultant to work out pay and options and deferred pay and retirement and every other good thing for Mr. Big. The compensation committee knows that its hiring and rehiring are dependent on Mr. Big’s being happy. So it crafts a package that will keep him happy — and throws in a few goodies for the directors.

It’s called the “boardroom buddy system,” and it works perfectly once you are on the inside. You just have to make sure you stay on the inside. And to do that, you don’t upset the apple cart with tacky questions about what the C.E.O. is doing or why he is paid so much.

Let’s look at some recent real-world tales of executive pay. My old pals at Goldman Sachs are paid so much that over 40 percent of the firm’s net revenue went to compensation and benefits last year, according to its latest 10-K. Goldman’s chief, Lloyd C. Blankfein, was paid $54 million last year. To be sure, the firm did well in 2007, but the stock has been tanking. It’s now at $175.40, down from $250.70 on Oct. 31.

Similarly, Stephen A. Schwarzman of Blackstone, which has lost about 40 percent of its value in the past six months, got more than $350 million. This is a company that has been a nightmare for investors since its debut last year as a public company. Pay at this level is art. (Blackstone wasn’t included in Equilar’s compensation survey because its revenues were below $6.5 billion.)

The amazing fact is that as the economy goes through challenges, as the stockholders and workers fume, the executives can basically set their own pay. Once the board has acted, according to a legal doctrine known as “the business judgment rule,” hardly anyone can challenge its actions. If it gets that compensation consulting firm to approve what it did, or if it comes from the compensation firm first, the pay is set in stone — except for the next time the board wants to raise it.

Bear in mind that everything I’ve been discussing is legal compensation. I haven’t mentioned illegal practices that some executives have used, like backdating stock options and not counting them as expenses. Backdating guarantees that option holders make money on their option grants, no matter how the stock performs. In addition, some companies made secretive “gross up” arrangements in which the company agreed to pay the executives’ taxes on pay and perks. (Gross-ups are legal if they are disclosed.)

In other words, it’s not a pretty picture. It shrieks greed and contempt for shareholders and workers.

Why was executive pay so much more restrained in years past? If the public stock corporation, of which Adam Smith was so skeptical back in the 1700s, is just a big treasure ship floating rudderless on the high seas and the executives are just pirates who loot it until they are too old to keep doing it, why didn’t they do it sooner?

Now we come to a sad fact about modern American life. It was brought up by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who often said that America, through its technology, has made of itself a neighborhood, but not a brotherhood. It is a lot worse now. The nation has become, to some at the top, far more of a looting opportunity than a family.

I am not sure where this has come from — maybe from media that glamorize wealth and high-end consumption, maybe from poor moral training. But one thing is clear: Current law does not give shareholders or regulators any tools to rein in executive greed. There simply is no legal “cause of action” for pay packages that, however obscene, are approved by the board and disclosed to shareholders. Congress could change this. So could the Securities and Exchange Commission.

To be sure, there have been efforts to rationalize pay for executives and chief executives. Yes, say the friends of the C.E.O.’s, pay has skyrocketed, but so has the size of the enterprises.

I don’t get that one. Does that mean the chief executive is working twice as many hours? And isn’t the more meaningful measurement the welfare of the owners of the company, the stockholders? Or the profits?

There have been attempts by Congress to limit the tax deductibility of chief executives’ pay. But these have done nothing to curb the rise in compensation. There have been efforts to link C.E.O. pay with stock performance. These have also not worked. (See “backdating” above, as well as perfectly legal changing of the strike price.) Every so often, dissident stockholders try to put nonbinding resolutions on proxies to approve or reject pay packages. That also rarely works, because the big institutional holders almost always vote with management. (It’s called the boardroom buddy system for a reason.)

AND so, with all moral restraints cast off, there is little to be done. Except in rare instances, the compensation is perfectly legal. As for me, I suggest a law requiring that nonbinding resolutions about pay be allowed on proxies if even only a small percentage of stockholders want them. (Binding resolutions might be too harsh on the few good managers out there.)

We could also have language barring “obscene and insulting pay,” which courts could interpret as they please, but this seems dangerously vague.

In the meantime, we face a crisis of the joint stock company, much as Adam Smith expected that we would. When the ideal comes face to face with the actual, the picture is rarely pretty.

And let me be honest about it. If I were a hard-charging C.E.O. who had worked my way up the greasy pole and spent most evenings and weekends away from my family, often in creepy hotels, and if my board came to me with a blue silk pillow on top of which was a check for $15 million for this year’s work, begging me to accept it with its thanks, I would probably take it. Wouldn’t you?

Your basic human is not such a hot item — and the structure of the joint stock company does not bring out the best in us. "

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/business...mp;ref=business

The Vault
flashymom
QUOTE (VDOVault @ Apr 7 2008, 04:23 PM) *
Here's some quick updates on the Hollywood labor situation

First of all IATSE one of the unions that represents many crew members starts negotiating with the AMPTP today. Their contract doesn't expire for 16 months but that's how IATSE's leader Tom Short wants to do things

There's a Variety article on IATSE's talks at http://www.variety.com/article/VR111798360...yid=15&cs=1

Second, starting on April 15th, the same day SAG is scheduled to start its negotiations with the AMPTP, there is going to be a multi day multi labor union event in the Los Angeles area called "Hollywood To The Docks - The Fight For Good Jobs". Both SAG members and AFTRA members are expected to participate in the events which include a 28 mile walk from Hollywood to the docks at San Pedro. Details are at http://www.hollywoodtothedocks.com/

There is some data on the Hollywood To The Docks website that suggests that Los Angeles actors average yearly wages in 2007 were around $30,000

Third there is a really excellent article that actor and economic analyst Ben Stein put in the New York Times that I will include here on just how high executive pay has become and how this not only has labor union members and rank and file employees upset, it also has the exectives' bosses -- the shareholders of the companies they work for -- very concerned.

""Your basic human is not such a hot item." — Rachel Epstein (my sister)

START with the obvious. Executive pay at the top levels in this country is stunning in its size and its rate of climb.

According to the Congressional Research Service, average pay for chief executives stood at 179 times average worker pay in 2005, up from a multiple of 90 in 1994. Adjusted for inflation, average worker pay rose by a total of only 8 percent from 1995 to 2005; median pay for chief executives at the 350 largest companies rose 150 percent.

Top executives' pay as a ratio of their employers' earnings has also skyrocketed in the last 15 years. And these executives are paid far more than their counterparts at companies of comparable size in Britain or Japan. How did this happen? How did pay grow so fast at the top?

It starts with several corporate governance factors and then goes into psychosocial factors. For one thing, although a company's stockholders by every legal precept own the company, they have almost no say in how their employees, the executives, are paid. Instead, the pay of the top executives is set by the board, usually the compensation committee. The directors are elected by the stockholders via proxies — those things you get in the mail and then throw away. Thus, in effect, the board is selected by top management, usually by the C.E.O. himself. Once a director is on the board, there is only the slightest of chances that he will leave, except for death or old age or illness.

To be a member of the board of a large company is a little example of paradise. You get good pay for just sitting in a meeting and listening to summary presentations. You get insurance and a pension. You can go to luxurious resorts and play golf. What the heck are security lines? You fly in private jets.

Sometimes, you get stock options, and these can be meaningful.

In other words, it's nice to be the director of a public company. How do you keep your job? You are really nice to the person who put you in that job. You don't know the little stockholder in Muncie who might have 500 shares. But you do know the guy who repeatedly reappoints you for your post at the directors' table. The little stockholder cannot do a thing for you, but the boss can.

When it comes to compensation, you want him to be really happy. It doesn't matter how well he's doing, unless he's wreaking havoc and you may be sued. It doesn't matter if the stock price has languished. You want what's best for No. 1, and that means what's best for Mr. Big.

You hire a compensation consultant to work out pay and options and deferred pay and retirement and every other good thing for Mr. Big. The compensation committee knows that its hiring and rehiring are dependent on Mr. Big's being happy. So it crafts a package that will keep him happy — and throws in a few goodies for the directors.

It's called the "boardroom buddy system," and it works perfectly once you are on the inside. You just have to make sure you stay on the inside. And to do that, you don't upset the apple cart with tacky questions about what the C.E.O. is doing or why he is paid so much.

Let's look at some recent real-world tales of executive pay. My old pals at Goldman Sachs are paid so much that over 40 percent of the firm's net revenue went to compensation and benefits last year, according to its latest 10-K. Goldman's chief, Lloyd C. Blankfein, was paid $54 million last year. To be sure, the firm did well in 2007, but the stock has been tanking. It's now at $175.40, down from $250.70 on Oct. 31.

Similarly, Stephen A. Schwarzman of Blackstone, which has lost about 40 percent of its value in the past six months, got more than $350 million. This is a company that has been a nightmare for investors since its debut last year as a public company. Pay at this level is art. (Blackstone wasn't included in Equilar's compensation survey because its revenues were below $6.5 billion.)

The amazing fact is that as the economy goes through challenges, as the stockholders and workers fume, the executives can basically set their own pay. Once the board has acted, according to a legal doctrine known as "the business judgment rule," hardly anyone can challenge its actions. If it gets that compensation consulting firm to approve what it did, or if it comes from the compensation firm first, the pay is set in stone — except for the next time the board wants to raise it.

Bear in mind that everything I've been discussing is legal compensation. I haven't mentioned illegal practices that some executives have used, like backdating stock options and not counting them as expenses. Backdating guarantees that option holders make money on their option grants, no matter how the stock performs. In addition, some companies made secretive "gross up" arrangements in which the company agreed to pay the executives' taxes on pay and perks. (Gross-ups are legal if they are disclosed.)

In other words, it's not a pretty picture. It shrieks greed and contempt for shareholders and workers.

Why was executive pay so much more restrained in years past? If the public stock corporation, of which Adam Smith was so skeptical back in the 1700s, is just a big treasure ship floating rudderless on the high seas and the executives are just pirates who loot it until they are too old to keep doing it, why didn't they do it sooner?

Now we come to a sad fact about modern American life. It was brought up by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who often said that America, through its technology, has made of itself a neighborhood, but not a brotherhood. It is a lot worse now. The nation has become, to some at the top, far more of a looting opportunity than a family.

I am not sure where this has come from — maybe from media that glamorize wealth and high-end consumption, maybe from poor moral training. But one thing is clear: Current law does not give shareholders or regulators any tools to rein in executive greed. There simply is no legal "cause of action" for pay packages that, however obscene, are approved by the board and disclosed to shareholders. Congress could change this. So could the Securities and Exchange Commission.

To be sure, there have been efforts to rationalize pay for executives and chief executives. Yes, say the friends of the C.E.O.'s, pay has skyrocketed, but so has the size of the enterprises.

I don't get that one. Does that mean the chief executive is working twice as many hours? And isn't the more meaningful measurement the welfare of the owners of the company, the stockholders? Or the profits?

There have been attempts by Congress to limit the tax deductibility of chief executives' pay. But these have done nothing to curb the rise in compensation. There have been efforts to link C.E.O. pay with stock performance. These have also not worked. (See "backdating" above, as well as perfectly legal changing of the strike price.) Every so often, dissident stockholders try to put nonbinding resolutions on proxies to approve or reject pay packages. That also rarely works, because the big institutional holders almost always vote with management. (It's called the boardroom buddy system for a reason.)

AND so, with all moral restraints cast off, there is little to be done. Except in rare instances, the compensation is perfectly legal. As for me, I suggest a law requiring that nonbinding resolutions about pay be allowed on proxies if even only a small percentage of stockholders want them. (Binding resolutions might be too harsh on the few good managers out there.)

We could also have language barring "obscene and insulting pay," which courts could interpret as they please, but this seems dangerously vague.

In the meantime, we face a crisis of the joint stock company, much as Adam Smith expected that we would. When the ideal comes face to face with the actual, the picture is rarely pretty.

And let me be honest about it. If I were a hard-charging C.E.O. who had worked my way up the greasy pole and spent most evenings and weekends away from my family, often in creepy hotels, and if my board came to me with a blue silk pillow on top of which was a check for $15 million for this year's work, begging me to accept it with its thanks, I would probably take it. Wouldn't you?

Your basic human is not such a hot item — and the structure of the joint stock company does not bring out the best in us. "

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/business...mp;ref=business

The Vault


Most of the time, lately, I cringe to see that you have added more to this post. Today, was OK -- I was afraid you were coming to us with bad news from the negotiations.....
VDOVault
QUOTE (flashymom @ Apr 7 2008, 05:43 PM) *
Most of the time, lately, I cringe to see that you have added more to this post. Today, was OK -- I was afraid you were coming to us with bad news from the negotiations.....


LOL I totally understand flashymom

The chatter on the actor forums I follow has been getting a little less personally hostile so I am taking that as a good sign that the actors are easing off of bashing each other and finally starting to focus on negotiating with the moguls. Nothing like a deadline to get them thinking about what really matters.

The Vault
flashymom
QUOTE (VDOVault @ Apr 7 2008, 05:01 PM) *
LOL I totally understand flashymom

The chatter on the actor forums I follow has been getting a little less personally hostile so I am taking that as a good sign that the actors are easing off of bashing each other and finally starting to focus on negotiating with the moguls. Nothing like a deadline to get them thinking about what really matters.

The Vault



::crosses fingers:: I hope so, Vault. I hope so!
LOCIFan2
First, it was the writers; are actors next to go?

By Rick Kushman - rkushman@sacbee.com
Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, April 7, 2008


http://www.sacbee.com/kushman/story/841383.html

Remember the Hollywood writers strike? Pretty much stopped showbiz for three months, messed up TV and movies, hurt the state's economy, killed the Golden Globes show and almost the Oscars?

Actually, the Globes thing was a plus, but the point is, strike – bad. Over – good.

So, because I'm a fun guy, I bring you: the actors strike. Potential strike, really. And if I'm betting, I plunk cash on No Strike, but the possibility is out there, and I say let the worrying begin.

The short story is that the actors' contracts expire June 30, and they have the same core issue that the writers did – how to get paid from the wild and vast digital world of entertainment.

If I were the fretful type, I'd say one bad sign is that the two actors unions – the Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Television (SAG is bigger and represents most of the people you know) – are feuding. They've negotiated together for nearly three decades, but not this year.

You don't want to know the details, but this being Hollywood, be assured they are petty.

Still, the feel in the industry, despite the nervousness, is that the actors' talks with the studios and networks won't lead to the kind of ego-driven stubbornness from the studio bosses that brought the strike from the writers. Hollywood is still worn out from that strike, and lots of big-name players, including George Clooney, Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks, are pushing for a quick agreement.

The other good thing is that both unions are starting negotiations with the studios this month and, because both the directors and writers have new contracts, there are two blueprints for working things out.

But as the sayings go, in Hollywood nobody knows anything, and ego-driven stubbornness is a way of life. * * *

[Content not related to the Actors Contract Negotiations or LOCI has been deleted]
DonnaLJo
QUOTE (LOCIFan2 @ Apr 8 2008, 04:22 AM) *
[b]Rick Kushman: First, it was the writers; are actors next to go?[/b]

By Rick Kushman - rkushman@sacbee.com
Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, April 7, 2008


http://www.sacbee.com/kushman/story/841383.html

Remember the Hollywood writers strike? Pretty much stopped showbiz for three months, messed up TV and movies, hurt the state's economy, killed the Golden Globes show and almost the Oscars?

Actually, the Globes thing was a plus, but the point is, strike – bad. Over – good.

So, because I'm a fun guy, I bring you: the actors strike. Potential strike, really. And if I'm betting, I plunk cash on No Strike, but the possibility is out there, and I say let the worrying begin.

The short story is that the actors' contracts expire June 30, and they have the same core issue that the writers did – how to get paid from the wild and vast digital world of entertainment.

If I were the fretful type, I'd say one bad sign is that the two actors unions – the Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Television (SAG is bigger and represents most of the people you know) – are feuding. They've negotiated together for nearly three decades, but not this year.

You don't want to know the details, but this being Hollywood, be assured they are petty.

Still, the feel in the industry, despite the nervousness, is that the actors' talks with the studios and networks won't lead to the kind of ego-driven stubbornness from the studio bosses that brought the strike from the writers. Hollywood is still worn out from that strike, and lots of big-name players, including George Clooney, Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks, are pushing for a quick agreement.

The other good thing is that both unions are starting negotiations with the studios this month and, because both the directors and writers have new contracts, there are two blueprints for working things out.

But as the sayings go, in Hollywood nobody knows anything, and ego-driven stubbornness is a way of life. * * *

[Content not related to the Actors Contract Negotiations or LOCI has been deleted]


Thanks for the article, LOCIFan2. I hope this Mr. Cushman is correct, in that the liklihood of a strike is minimal.

I imagine the "studio bosses," as he calls them, have more respect for actors. Their small minds can easily see how important an actor is to a film or series.

Somehow they didn't understand, in terms of the SAG strike, that there is nothing without the written word. Such a simple concept, right?
LOCIFan2
Bumping This - I wish I didn't have to feel this way; but I think this thread should remain on the 1st page until June 30 and/or the Actors Contract(s) are completed and ratified. (I hope that doesn't mean until another Strike has ended.)
DonnaLJo
Here's an update, compliments of the Major Case-CI site:

SAG Rebuff Actors Demands

Petition calls on the union's board to require that only actors who work at least one day a year be allowed to vote on upcoming contract.


Deepening conflict within Hollywood's biggest union, the Screen Actors Guild's board of directors on Saturday rebuffed a demand by more than 1,400 actors that it immediately move to limit who can vote in upcoming contract negotiations.

Kevin Bacon, Glenn Close, Ben Affleck, Ethan Hawke and hundreds of other guild members signed a petition calling on the board to require that only actors who work at least one day a year be allowed to vote on the principal film and TV contract.

Most of the guild's 120,000 members don't work regularly, stoking concerns that nonworking members might be more inclined to support a walkout by actors when their contract expires June 30. Actors begin contract negotiations with studios Tuesday.

To make it more palatable, the petition's backers had modified their initial proposal, reducing the work requirement from five days to one day a year.

As expected, the measure faced heavy opposition from many of the guild's Hollywood board members, who argued that it would disenfranchise most guild members. SAG President Alan Rosenberg earlier dismissed the idea as elitist.

The board referred the matter to a committee, which was widely seen by proponents as a rejection. "I don't think there is a will to address this issue seriously under the current leadership," said actor Ned Vaughn, one of the petition organizers. "We're disappointed, but that hardly means we will go away."

In SAG, any member in good standing can vote on the film and TV contract. Members qualify for membership if they have appeared in a principal or speaking role in a SAG film, video, television program or commercial. Also eligible are extras who have worked at least three days on a SAG-covered show in their lifetimes, and people who qualify to join through a sister union.

More at:

LA Times SAG Article



My opinion? I think working one day a year is a very reasonable requirement for voting on issues that affect working actors. I'm sure some unemployed actors resent those that have acting jobs, and might vote against issues just to be spiteful or prove a point.
VDOVault
QUOTE (DonnaJo @ Apr 13 2008, 04:33 PM) *
Here's an update, compliments of the Major Case-CI site:

SAG Rebuff Actors Demands
LA Times SAG Article

My opinion? I think working one day a year is a very reasonable requirement for voting on issues that affect working actors. I'm sure some unemployed actors resent those that have acting jobs, and might vote against issues just to be spiteful or prove a point.


Okay I was trying to stay out of this one (which I fear is going to be very controversial not just amongst actors but also amongst viewers and fans) but since it's being discussed here, I'll bite.

I am still against qualified voting as the proposal is currently written (and I have been against it pretty much since the day it was proposed). Previous to this (and I think the amendment to the proposal came on April 8th) the proposal was five days a year for principal roles, or fifteen days for extras/background actors. I believe that the one day a year requirement is considered to be three days a year for background actors (at least that is how it read before April 8th). And this is an average over two prior three-year contract terms so somehow an actor has to have to actually have worked six days in the previous six years in a speaking part or eighteen days in the previous six years if he/she works in nonspeaking roles to qualify to vote.

A few weeks ago, I had read an article
http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-ca-mitte2mar02,0,267428.story
about the AMC series 'Breaking Bad' which mentioned that the young teenager (RJ Mitte) who is playing the son happens to really have cerebral palsy. That article cites a SAG study from 2003 which says that

only a third of SAG members with disabilities reported working in a theatrical or TV production in 2003, and those who did worked an average of 4.1 days that year.

So the actors who wrote this provision for qualifying voting would have potentially disenfranchised a whole bunch of actors with disabilities. How the Americans With Disabilities Act and union policies intersect is definitely not my area of legal expertise but I could see lawsuits for the guild developing if the proposal had passed with its old five and 15 day requirements.

Our show has shown special consideration for employing actors with disabilities...the CI episode 'Silencer' is considered a stand out episode in the industry because a record 45 deaf actors got principal and background parts. Would that the episode only be a standout because of its good writing and acting, but for now despite the fact that one in five Americans has a disability, the entertainment industry has a long way to go towards making disabled characters more mainstream than they currently are.

Moreover the figures on how many actors earn too little to qualify are the opposite of those for the WGA which has qualified voting (I think their qualification is one script written and sold in the previous two contract terms). In the WGA of its 12,500 members only at most 2,000 were inelligible to vote on their latest contract ratification vote. By contrast, in the 120,000 member as many as 102,000 members may be unable to vote on their contracts if qualified voting as rewritten had immediately passed. Somehow having the vast majority of the union being unable to vote on their most common standard contracts (which cover such things as residual rates, pension qualification & coverage and health insurance qualification & coverage) struck me as unreasonable (isn't every actor affected by where the bar is set for health insurance or pension coverage?)...it's not much of a benefit to belong to a union if you pay dues but can't vote.

Now I am aware that the 'working' actors may be scared that the 'nonworking' actors may be strike happy, but the limited data I have seen on the voting record of the mass of guild members suggest otherwise. Very few actors actually vote for their guild officers in elections etc...just 12,000 or so actors ('working' or not) voted in the last SAG board elections. So I don't see the great mass of 'not working' actors rising up and organizing to vote to spite the 'working' actors...they are either too busy out hustling to get acting jobs or working at their survival jobs to 'revolt' and spite the 'working' actors. This climate of distrust and fear is something created by those in power in the industry to keep actor battling actor and fearful and to help bring an end to the viability of being a middle class actor. I don't see having a tiny group of actors who are wildly financially successful and a vast majority of rarely able to act actors who live on meager wages from a 'survival job' as a good sign for the long term health of the entertainment industry (indeed this disturbing trend in all fields in the USA is not good for us all).

I also question not just the logic of this qualified voting proposal or the actual terms or the 'hidden sentiment' motivating it but its timing.

You all remember what the 100 day WGA strike was like (If you don't, there's a nice long thread here you can read up on the gorey details). As it stands SAG starts its talks tomorrow with the AMPTP. For the moment SAG is left to talking with the AMPTP without AFTRA (there was an ugly surprise split between SAG & AFTRA on March 29th, and while SAG's board has invited AFTRA to negotiate with them tomorrow or Wednesday -- the extension of a last minute olive branch, that is not considered likely to happen).

What I think is unreasonable in qualified voting as the proposal is written is the fact that it was dumped onto both actors unions to deal with right before they have to go to negotiations with the AMPTP. AFTRA sent this same proposal to a similar AFTRA committee but not only is the mainstream press not telling you this, they are not demonizing AFTRA's leadership for sending the proposal to a committee 'where proposals go to die'. I would rather SAG and AFTRA not pass a poorly written and poorly considered proposal than see them pressured into adopting something that could get SAG and AFTRA sued, that may be unduly discriminatory against older, female, minority, and disabled actors, and something that may destroy both unions from within. But I don't get why one union is being chided for exercising the same prudence as its sister union.

Finally I am convinced that these two actors union negotiations are going to be a lot harder than the negotiations for the writers. SAG's board is standing its ground on asking for higher residuals for DVDs (something that the WGA let go) as well as better terms for new media residuals than what the writers got. I certainly want to see new media residuals improve for the writers and I think the SAG arguments that actors are entitled to get a little more on DVDs are quite valid. I am not strike happy but if that is where SAG has to go then that is something I will back.

Anyway for what it's worth, the website of the qualified voting proposal supporters is at:

http://www.workingactorsvoice.com

The Vault
DonnaLJo
Thanks for clearing that up, Vault.