The Screen Actors Guild took another step toward a potential strike today by announcing its strike authorization schedule. Ballots will go out to paid up members on Friday, Jan. 2 and are due back for tabulation on Friday, Jan. 23. Seventy-five percent of the voting members must vote yes to approve a strike, which the 120,000-plus member union is expected to use as a negotiating ploy to seek further gains from the conglomerates. Should the union fail to achieve what they want in a new contract, SAG national board of directors must call for a strike before picketing can actually begin.
SAG has been working without a contract since June and is the last Hollywood union without a new deal. In a statement to members, SAG President Alan Rosenberg said, “SAG Members must understand that their futures as professional actors are at stake, and I believe that SAG members will evaluate the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers’ June 30 offer and vote to send us back to the table with the threat of a strike. A yes vote sends a strong message that we are serious about fending off rollbacks and getting what is fair for actors in new media.”
The authorization vote was delayed until after the holidays to give SAG a chance to educate members about the perceived benefits of a strike authorization. “Our objective remains to get a deal that SAG members will ratify,” added Doug Allen, SAG’s national exec director and chief negotiator, “not to go on strike.”
The AMPTP reacted with a statement of its own: “It’s now official: SAG members are going to be asked to bail out a failed negotiating strategy by going on strike during one of the worst economic crises in history. We hope that working actors will study our contract offer carefully and come to the conclusion that no strike can solve the problems that have been created by SAG’s own failed negotiation strategy.”
Timing of the vote should come as a huge relief to the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, which was surely wringing its hands over a possible repeat of last season’s disastrous Golden Globes (the previous ceremony occurred in the midst of the writers strike and was subsequently boycotted by actors). Since results of the authorization vote aren’t due until late January, the Globes should go on as scheduled Jan. 11. Brooke Shields, together with Elizabeth Banks, Terrence Howard, Rainn Wilson, and HFPA President Jorge Camara, will announce the nominations tomorrow morning.
More on Hollywood labor:
SAG-AMPTP talks fail
Private Practice stars voted to SAG board
Actors sound off on potential SAG strike
The Golden Globes are off!
Filthy rich greedy actors looking for more money at a time when were in a deep recession and people are struggling for food. A*holes!
i thought 75 percent “yes” vote was required for strike authorization…?
oh, that means, potentially, no Academy Awards… that sounds like fun… wooo hooo.
Whatever benefits this union may win will be more than offset by the networks march toward all reality/game/talk all the time. Jay Leno will be on 5 nights a week in prime time!!! Hello!
Wow.. We’re in the middle of a recession and here they are.. typical greedy stars… oh boo hoo.. you only make 250k+ a year doing 6 months of filming for tv as opposed to making 300k…
Cry us a river and shut up. If they strike I hope they all lose their jobs and come down to reality with the rest of America.
i hate them! They want more money and more money while the rest of us work like dogs for just enough for our families.
first we must kill all the unions!!!they were necessary evils during upton sinclairs days, but now their greed is simply putting america out of work…next we must kill hollywood…it had merit in the days when film making, script writing, and acting were noble arts, but those days are long gone…let them strike and see how much sympathy they receive…
For those of you who are attacking the actors, let me educate you. Only 5% of those you are attacking are the filthy rich. The other Union actors are barely getting by. I represent Actors, and I fight to get some kind of money for the actors. The rates are ridiculous. Advertising agencies and Producers and Clients are making billions out of consumers, but they want to pay Actors $100.00 to make a commercial or a photo shoot. They are not fighting to get richer. SAG is fighting for new media. The internet has practically ruined my business. Clients like Kodak, Wal Mart, Cheerios have found new ways to market and continue to make billions and pay the actor $100.00. So the actors must strike. Time Warner claims they have to raise their rates based on the economy; well actors must get raises based on the economy.
When the writers strike happened last year I was behind them until a friend convinced me otherwise. The same arguement my friend gave me also applies here. Why is it that (in this case) the actors want a bigger portion of the revenues when they assume none of the financial risk? I understand that if a movie grosses $300M domestic that the actors want profit participation, but if a film bombs, are those same actors going to return their paychecks? If SAG wants more money for their members, then perhaps they should invest and become equal partners in the projects they make with the studios.
I’m a public accountant and see this from another perspective. If there is a strike now it be the death blow to our already devastated economy. 110,000 actors out of work in L A would put 500,000 other people out of work and then we will see even more jobs outsourced from the USA to other countries, including the film industry. I don’t care much for British movies or TV, but that’s what we could be stuck with. Please wait until the economy is strong to push for improvements, otherwise we may cripple media industries here permanently. We no longer make clothes or tires or televisions in the USA because of unions hitting industries at times of weakness. Let’s learn from history and put our community first for now.
John Wurts
President
John Wurts Financial Services
johnwurtsfinan@aol.com
Okay, I get that most actors aren’t mega-rich. The ones we see on our tv’s and movies are a small percentage of all actors. But you know what – they chose to go into a field that has extremely high competition – there are many more actors than there are jobs, and only a select few really make it big. Already, their pay for 1 day of work is almost more than I make in a three days of work. And that’s fair, how? Sure, they may only work a day or two a month but again, that isn’t anyone’s fault – that’s the reality of the profession. To be willing to put thousands out of a job in this economy so THEY can make even more per hour than they do now, so they can get extra money for this or that – well, there may be an argument to fight for this another day, but to do it now when others who can’t afford it will feel the consequences of their actions is completely unconscionable.
I understand that not all actors are as rich as Angelina Jolie, however I cannot condone another strike after we are still reeling from the WGA strike last year. The economy is not doing well and another strike to benefit the actors is going to hurt EVERYONE associated with films and TV shows at a time when they really need their jobs. I hope the SGA members take this into account and vote no on this, they aren’t going to have any sympathy from the public.
A strike would be a huge public relations mistake for both sides. This is not a good time and I would fear the backlash.
How convenient to wait to have a strike AFTER their award show. And while thousands of people are laid off from their jobs every day these ‘actors’ (with the exception of Mike Farell and a few others) have the nerve to refuse the same deal that the writers and other unions took. Selfish morons! I hope the studios close if there is a strike, lock out the writers, producers and everyone and fill the T.V. with reality and foreign shows.
Joe, I like your comment on financial risk. Makes a lot of sense to me. Maybe the studios should quickly stick this in their terms with the unions.