SAG Seeks Strike

[byrdman9802]

Hello boys and girls!

Hey, I hope that your weeks are off to a good start thus far.

I found this article in the TV/Media section of USA Today's Life portion before work this morning, and it has further details about the possible strike. Check it out......

USA Today Article

Have a good night, boys and girls!

[eduardodelroice]

Dec 2, 2008 19:21:32 GMT -5 byrdman9802 said:

Hello boys and girls!

Hey, I hope that your weeks are off to a good start thus far.

I found this article in the TV/Media section of USA Today's Life portion before work this morning, and it has further details about the possible strike. Check it out......

USA Today Article

Have a good night, boys and girls!

Thanks for the info byrdman

[byrdman9802]

More news on this issue.....

Here is an article that I found on Yahoo! News that has the details of a strike vote by SAG - apparently they will be sending out the strike authorizations to members on Jan. 2.

The article is titled : "Screen Actors Guild sets strike vote on Jan. 2." Check it out:

SAG Sets Strike Vote Article

So, what do you think?

[Naj]

Don't know what to think, byrdman. The writers strike and SAG should have teamed up to have one big strike. (I know it doesn't work that way) I don't think the general public will have too much pity on Hollywood at this point with the recession now offically one year old.

[myril]

Might not be popular to go on strike, but the issue with new media is an unsolved one.

[eduardodelroice]

If the strike goes, It will be harmful for the media with the recession =S

[myril]

A strike is meant to hurt, economically, put pressure on the companies. And it's not like the writers strike happened in a phase of prosperity. I'm little worried about media business by itself at the moment, it will survive. Hard it would be for all the production staff involved, another strike just a year later.

SAG has a webside, btw, so if anyone wants to get more information and updates from their point of view ... www.sag.org

It's not sure though, that they will get actually the aquired approval of 75% of voting members, there are doubts about that. A pro-strike vote must not even turn into a strike in the end. At the moment it's flexing of muscle.

[eduardodelroice]

Dec 10, 2008 16:56:13 GMT -5 myril said:

A strike is meant to hurt, economically, put pressure on the companies. And it's not like the writers strike happened in a phase of prosperity. I'm little worried about media business by itself at the moment, it will survive. Hard it would be for all the production staff involved, another strike just a year later.

SAG has a webside, btw, so if anyone wants to get more information and updates from their point of view ... www.sag.org

It's not sure though, that they will get actually the aquired approval of 75% of voting members, there are doubts about that. A pro-strike vote must not even turn into a strike in the end. At the moment it's flexing of muscle.

If actors vote yes, I mean, would not they lose their salaries? I don't think they want so in this moment of crisis

[myril]

Dec 10, 2008 17:14:13 GMT -5 @eduardodelroice said:

If actors vote yes, I mean, would not they lose their salaries? I don't think they want so in this moment of crisis

Yes, Eduardo, they would, IF they have work at the moment. But how many can actually live solely by acting for screen (tv, movie)? If they do decide to vote for a strike, it's their decision. Thing is, it effects a lot of other people as well, who have no vote in this. At least to the writers the actors now could say though, we showed solidarity to you now its your turn, but that doesn't count for plenty of other people in the business.

It's tactical a very interesting situation. You have different groups of people with different interests organized in different unions or guildes - negotiating with one partner on the other side, AMPTP, the organisation of the studios and production companies. It gives AMPTP a slight advantage, as long as the unions find it difficult to work with each other. AMPTP can see to get one big deal with one of the more important unions (meaning having more influence, who would actually care if the gaffers would go on strike?) and than point at the others and say, hey, they agreed, why can't you, basically it's about the same things (new media in this case). Exactly what AMPTP is doing at the moment. Dividere et impera - classical. I remember, that SAG wasn't such a happy camper about the outcome of the writers' negotiations.

Now add the recent situation of a now more obvious economic crisis (California is close to bankruptcy btw), that of course doesn't make it any easier for SAG to keep their position. How can you dare to fight and eventually go on strike when people are already struggling to keep job and to get enough income? If you only stick with your position though when things are all good for everybody, how serious are you with your demands?

There are many voices, saying , make a deal now, stomach the thing for the moment, in 3 years you get the next and probably better chance. Who knows though, if situation will be better, the crisis could last or there could already be another one, the unions and guilds might still find it hard to come up with a joined tactic.

SAG's position is weak, given the others made a contract (and more or less postponed the issue of new media, hope they're not getting the same silly game they're still having with video and DVD revenues), seeing the global economic situation, and considering probably internal differences. Whatever they want to do, they need to assure solidarity of the other employees in film industry IMO first, otherwise consequences could be long lasting for any further efforts to make better deals. Second is to make sure, that more people (public) understand, what they want and why, and that it is such a basic matter, that it's worth fighting for regardless recent economic matters, maybe turn it around even in saying, especially considering what is going on it's even more important to insist on a change of policy now and not wait another three years to discuss it.

The development of new media is breath taking. If Obama is serious about making internet and broadband connection one of the central pillars to give economy a positive turn, it might even accelerate, tv and movie companies are making more and more deals with internet business about streaming their shows. People, especially young people are turning more and more to internet for entertainment. Putting pressure on the companies to deal with that and still make profit from the side of employees, aka actors/actresses in this case, might actually help to come up with working business modells faster. See what happened in music business, the more artists there turn to internet as a useful platform to spread their work, the more the old music companies now finally seems to get, that blocking and complaining is not a good way to make future business. It's now the time to nail some things down.

Oops, sorry, clearly the politician, unionist and social scientist in me just emerged again here. LOL

So, back to your question, Eduardo. Would the actors / actresses want to lose salarie in times of crisis? Guess not, not unless they think it's really worth it. Some might care little though, seeing that acting for screen is not their only income, maybe not even their main one. Others might say, we can take it for a couple of weeks - guess it wouldn't effect their revenues from residuals (reruns of done shows) for the moment, strike means, to refuse to work now, not refusing any payments. The vote might be for some more a question of politics and effects than of their present income. Of course for some it will be a question of present income as well.

[eduardodelroice]

Thanks Myril for your explanation. It's a really complicated situation that gets more complicated when you see the economic crisis the whole world is facing.
California going to bankrupt? I heard the California government had some problems but never heard of banktuptcy

[eduardodelroice]

Found this info today on MSN Entertainment


Screen Actors Guild faces dissension from NY board
Dec. 13, 2008, 12:47 AM EST

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A faction of the Screen Actors Guild on Friday called for the union to suspend an upcoming vote to authorize a strike amid stalled negotiations with Hollywood producers.

The announcement represents a major split between the union's Hollywood leadership and a more moderate group based in New York. The group hopes its opposition will force the union to rethink the timing of its vote scheduled for January.

"Our members and our industry are struggling through the worst economic crisis in memory," the New York board said in a statement. "While issuing a strike authorization may have been a sensible strategy in October, we believe it is irresponsible to do so now."

The New York division's 14 board members also called for the 71-member national board to hold an emergency meeting to appoint new negotiators to work with the American Motion Picture and Television Producers, which represents the major studios.

"With a fresh team, the AMPTP will return to the table, and we can get a fair deal," the New York board wrote. "A deal that will not cost careers, homes, lives. We want our members to understand that while strikes are sometimes unavoidable, we will do everything in our power to avoid this one."

SAG President Alan Rosenberg said he was surprised by the announcement because the group did not approach him first. He said he agreed to call an emergency meeting to discuss "this extraordinarily destructive and subversive action." He would not say when the meeting would be held or what effect the board's opposition may have on the scheduled vote.

SAG plans to send strike authorization ballots to more than 100,000 union members on Jan. 2, a date that puts Oscar night within reach of a potential boycott. Votes will be counted on Jan. 23, ahead of the Feb. 22 Academy Awards, the most important date on the Hollywood awards calendar.

Approval by 75 percent of voting members is required to pass the measure. If it is approved, the SAG national board can call a strike.

Studios and the actors union have been negotiating a new deal since before the previous contract expired June 30.

SAG wants union coverage for all Internet-only productions regardless of budget and residual payments for Internet productions replayed online, as well as continued actor protections during work stoppages.

Directors, writers, stagehands and another actors union settled for lesser terms and the studios said it was unreasonable for SAG to demand a better deal, especially now that the economy has worsened.

AMPTP spokesman Jesse Hiestand declined to comment on the board's announcement.

Meanwhile, the guild has been sending e-mails, fact sheets and Web video testimonials by famous actors urging members to vote for the strike authorization. It said Mel Gibson, Ed Harris, Holly Hunter, Martin Sheen and other actors were among the first signers of SAG's "Statement of Support."

The actors union, however, appears to be in transition. In guild elections in September, an upstart group called Unite For Strength broke up the majority control of the national board that had been held by Rosenberg's supporters. But the Unite group has not clarified its position on the strike vote.

The guild plans a town hall meeting Monday in New York and another one Wednesday in Hollywood.

[silversideup]

Thanks of the information, Eduardo!

[eduardodelroice]

Dec 13, 2008 9:41:25 GMT -5 @silversideup said:

Thanks of the information, Eduardo!

np silver =]

[byrdman9802]

Hi Eduardo!

Hey, bud. Thanks for posting this. Hmmmm......it seems that there is discension in the ranks of SAG's different portions.

Well, I saw that SAG is mailing out the strike authorizations on Jan. 2 to its members. I wonder if anything will come of these scheduled town hall meetings. We will keep watching!

Man, is anyone else as ready as I am for a new ep next week? It seems like a long time since we saw the last one. It will get here though. KM rocks!

[eduardodelroice]

Dec 13, 2008 18:35:02 GMT -5 byrdman9802 said:

Hi Eduardo!

Hey, bud. Thanks for posting this. Hmmmm......it seems that there is discension in the ranks of SAG's different portions.

Well, I saw that SAG is mailing out the strike authorizations on Jan. 2 to its members. I wonder if anything will come of these scheduled town hall meetings. We will keep watching!

Man, is anyone else as ready as I am for a new ep next week? It seems like a long time since we saw the last one. It will get here though. KM rocks!

np byrdman

Yeah, they don't think the same way... I think It'll be very hard they approve the strike

[myril]

What a mess. Weakening SAGs position even more, and might do damage for a while.

BTW. WGA filled on Nov. 19. for arbitration claiming that producers don't pay for new-media residuals. It's about what they call electronic sell-through, meaning for stuff sold via electronic download (like itune-store) as well as about streaming shows on internet. Issue is, if films done before February 2008 are included or not. WGA says, agreement was, films produced after July 1 1971 and tv programs produced after 1977 are covered, AMTPT says, no, agreement was different. So much for issues with other unions are settled ...

[myril]

SAG delays strike authorization vote
Decides to mail ballots on Jan. 14 at earliest

Associated Press

Dec 23, 2008, 02:14 AM ET
SAG has delayed a vote that would give the union the power to call a strike and bring the entertainment business to a virtual halt.

SAG announced Monday night that it would delay sending out the ballots until Jan. 14 at the earliest. SAG had planned to send strike authorization ballots to more than 100,000 union members on Jan. 2, a date that would have put Oscar night within reach of a potential boycott.

It was not clear how long the vote would be delayed.

The decision comes more than week after a New York faction of the union spoke out against the vote, noting the industry's economic struggles.

SAG leaders have been pushing for the vote amid stalled contract negotiations with studios.

Jesse Hiestand, a spokesman for the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, said he knows about the delay but would not comment. SAG spokeswoman Pamela Greenwalt also would not comment.

source: Hollywoodreporter

[eduardodelroice]

Thanx for the info myril... Let's see what happen