« The Mythologies Of The Month | Main | BYOB w/ A Question »
December 03, 2008
The Real Issue Of The Month
I feel like there is not nearly enough discussion about…
The SAG Strike Or Non-Strike
Here is my simple answer. SAG lost their strike the day that WGA struck last November.
I hate to be a dog with an old bone, but the idea of a late year, single guild/union strike is just not viable. I can’t speak for all years past, but I can certainly backup the argument in the current structure of this industry.
For all the rage, union/guild deals with AMPTP are, generally, a matter of process. Small victories are won and lost, but the studio side designs its game to allow for just enough for the guilds/unions so as to avoid painful strikes and/or the destruction of the unions/guilds under the weight of their own efforts to make greater progress.
But right now, we are facing real change, not unlike the United States economy. The cycle of getting fat and then being forced into severe fiscal diets has gone on for years, but the deep pockets of conglomerates have made it all too easy to overreach and now, is making the reductions that much more profound.
The evolution of online media is both a red herring and a major issue. But the unions have not been good about making the distinction between one and another, leaking either money or sympathy out of either side of the discussion.
The problem for SAG, from the start of the strike season, is that digital, in the form of reruns, is a real life and death issue of the community of working actors who are just barely hanging on. WGA was, to a great extent, worrying about making a good living. A significant number of SAG members are facing a much more direct threat to paying rent and having health insurance.
But all of this is now in the rearview mirror.
SAG couldn’t get WGA to wait… to develop a unified front… and now they are the last union negotiating. Nothing SAG achieves could have any direct effect on the other unions/guilds for years. So none of their goals will play as being in the name of the industry, only of actors.
The timing could not have been worse for SAG in terms of the ongoing civil war inside the guild. Alan Rosenberg and his followers are virtually forced to take the hardest line, because the reality is that if they show any weakness, the “other side” will regain control of the union, there will be an AFTRA merger, and the very real concerns that Team Rosenberg has about the contract extension that AFTRA already agreed to, will become the law, and an entire slice of working actors are likely to be pushed out of the profession for financial reasons.
Of course, people don’t want to think about all that. They just want to know… is there going to be a strike and will it mess with their life’s pleasures?
And the answer has to be, I don’t know.
What I do know is that a SAG strike will not be successful in achieving anything that is not already on the table or that AMPTP is already prepared to put on the table.
In my opinion, what SAG needs to do, at this point, is to pick some very achievable goals and to start promotion in the media to make their demands accessible. There is ZERO support out there for this strike right now. And SAG desperately needs the industry not to be just wondering about a strike and whether it will hurt the Oscars (in reality, this did nothing to move things along for WGA), but questioning why AMPTP won’t just make a few more concessions so that everyone can go back to work with confidence.
My fear is that Team Rosenberg, feeling cornered, will look at WGA – which didn’t get a deal that helped SAG achieve its goals – at least moving forward and authorize a poorly conceived strike. We may have already passed the point where SAG can avoid being eaten by AFTRA. But burning down the house is not going make things any better.
Posted by dpoland at December 3, 2008 01:17 PM
Comments
"Nothing SAG achieves could have any direct effect on the other unions/guilds for years."
Presumably the favored nations clauses in the DGA deal (I'm not sure the WGA deal has favored nations) would apply to any gains received.
And the WGA wouldn't wait because we were afraid the DGA would skip ahead of us like they did in 2004 and negotiate a deal that would set the standard for all the deals while we were sitting on our hands waiting for SAG.
In the end, the DGA made the first deal anyway, but WGA leadership, at least, believes that they got a better deal because we were on strike.
Posted by: RDP ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 3, 2008 05:11 PM
dpoland wrote: "What I do know is that a SAG strike will not be successful in achieving anything that is not already on the table or that AMPTP is already prepared to put on the table."
The question becomes what would prompt AMPTP to lay out all its cards other than a strike? It seems like it's a case of not knowing what could be had until push comes to shove. It seems kinda messed up because if SAG takes whatever deal too early the perception will be that they're weak and caved unnecessarily.
I'd actually like to know how much could winning the battle of PR actually aid in winning the war of the CBA? As hated as actors could become for "presumably" wanting more moola in these tough econ times, no one's organizing a concerted effort to boycott Hollywood. People will find diversions, people will explore passed over content but once any work stoppage ends, people will plop down their $8-12 to see their favorite stars. No questions asked, no apology necessary.
Sure TV has taken a hit since the WGA strike but there were no real ratings juggernauts people were lighting candles during the shutdown anyway. The downturn is based more on a lack of excitement, not heldover resentment. I don't know what would be TV's version of steroids it could hope its performers could take to build up a network verison of McGuire-Sosa. More goodwill is not necessity.
Likewise, as greedy as actors would look, all it would take is the proper spin to say, "fair is fair. This is yet another example of gluttonous corporate execs over stuffing their pockets then expecting others to pay for their lavishness." Jane Q Public could raise her hand and shout "testify" to the TV but then what could be done? Would strong public sentiment cause any movement?
I know there'll be various debates about guilds' presenting unified fronts but what wasn't really the issue that led to the non-acceptance of the WGA's pre-strike proposals fear of what AMPTP would be thereby agreeing to pay talent? When the studio heads were saying there'd be a strike because they couldn't afford to pay that demand, wasn't it really the aggregate number of the combined guilds, primarily talent, that was the issue? The nickel increase to the WGA wasn't going to sink the studios but a corresponding percentage increase across the board is what I'd imagine would cause the financial hit. Maybe SAG was pissed at AFTRA for the rate they accepted but they still gotta know what they’re gonna get. Conversely, for AMPTP not to have already presented best offer seems like holding a Scooby snack behind your back with your retriever panting in front of you. How long of a wait is necessary when both parties know no one’s walking away still holding that bone?
Posted by: Triple Option at December 3, 2008 06:01 PM
"The question becomes what would prompt AMPTP to lay out all its cards other than a strike?"
It's on the table. The DGA deal is the deal. It's what we got, and it's what SAG will get.
When the WGA went on strike, that deal had yet to be made. Now that it's been made, that's what it's going to be for everybody.
To say that they haven't made their best offer is being disingenuous. It's on the table.
Posted by: RDP at December 3, 2008 08:12 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)