Screen Actors Guild Members Overwhelmingly Ratify TV/Theatrical Agreements

[Casey Green]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Screen Actors Guild Members Overwhelmingly Ratify TV/Theatrical Agreements

Los Angeles, (June 9, 2009) – Screen Actors Guild announced today that members have voted overwhelmingly to approve its TV/Theatrical contracts by a vote of 78 percent to 22 percent.
*
The two-year successor agreement covers film and digital television programs, motion pictures and new media productions. The pact becomes effective at 12:01 a.m. June 10, 2009 and expires June 30, 2011.
*
The contracts provide more than $105 million in wages, increased pension contributions, and other gains and establishes a template for SAG coverage of new media formats.
*
Approximately 110,000 SAG members received ballots of which 35.26 percent returned them – a return that is above average compared with typical referenda on Screen Actors Guild contracts. Integrity Voting Systems of Everett, WA, provided election services and tonight certified the final vote tally upon completion of the tabulation.
*
The vote count in the Hollywood Division was 70.70 percent to 29.30 percent in favor. In the New York Division, the vote count was 85.74 percent to 14.26 percent in favor. And in the Regional Branch Division, the vote count was 89.06 percent to 10.94 percent in favor.
*
Screen Actors Guild President Alan Rosenberg said, "The membership has spoken and has decided to work under the terms of this contract that many of us, who have been involved in these negotiations from the beginning, believe to be devastatingly unsatisfactory. Tomorrow morning I will be contacting the elected leadership of the other talent unions with the hope of beginning a series of pre-negotiation summit meetings in preparation for 2011. I call upon all SAG members to begin to ready themselves for the battle ahead,” Rosenberg added.
*
Screen Actors Guild Interim National Executive Director David White said, “This decisive vote gets our members back to work with immediate pay raises and puts SAG in a strong position for the future. Preparation for the next round of negotiations begins now. Our members can expect more positive changes in the coming months as we organize new work opportunities, repair and reinvigorate our relationships with our sister unions and industry partners, and continue to improve the Guild’s operations.”
*
Screen Actors Guild Chief Negotiator John McGuire said, "I want to thank the SAG members and staff who dedicated their time to the negotiations process. We emerged with a solid deal that the members have now voted up. The negotiating team worked tirelessly, building on the work of the first negotiating committee, to deliver these improvements to members.”
*
Screen Actors Guild began talks with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers on April 15, 2008.* Guild Chief Negotiator John McGuire, Interim National Executive Director David White, and Deputy National Executive Director for Contracts Ray Rodriguez, working with a 10-person negotiating task force comprised of Screen Actors Guild board members and officers representing the three divisions, reached the tentative agreement on April 16, 2009 after 12 months of periodic negotiations with the motion picture studios and television networks.
*
For further information on the new contract, including the full text and a summary of the agreement, click here.*

ACTORS RESPOND TO CONTRACT RATIFICATION

Tony Shalhoub, actor
“This is a great decision for SAG and I’m so appreciative of everything the new leadership is doing to put the Guild back on track. They’ve obviously got the right ideas for making SAG stronger.”

Stephen Collins, actor
"This contract passed because members knew it was time to take advantage of the gains our negotiators won and get back to work. On top of that, they understood that risking our ability to negotiate alongside AFTRA and the other unions in the 2011 negotiations would have been a huge mistake.* It's a great day for SAG."

Sam Freed, actor, 2nd National Vice President
“This decision by the membership marks the end of a very long process.* We can now move forward with a new sense of certainty.”

Sue-Anne Morrow, actor, National Board Member representing New York
"This is a good deal with good gains. SAG's members clearly agree. It's about time we got a raise. I'm so pleased that SAG's members exercised their right to be heard and said 'Yes!'."

Mike Hodge, actor, National Board Member representing New York
“I am extremely pleased that we have finally come to the close of a long, unproductive period. I am hopeful that we can heal our wounds and really start the work to become a unified, national union.”

Nancy Duerr, actor, National Board Member representing SAG Florida Branch
"This is a victory for SAG performers across our region. Stalled and delayed productions can now get underway, boosting our local economies. This contract not only puts more money in members' pockets, it preserves the high standards of working conditions our members have come to expect."

Todd Hissong, actor, Chicago Branch President, National Board Member
"By passing this referendum, Chicago members have sent a clear message that we want to get back to work. Screen Actors Guild members across the country have yet again demonstrated our grasp of the issues, the importance of unionism, and our need to stand together with our sister unions to make deals that benefit us all.”

David Hartley-Margolin, Colorado actor, SAG 3rd Vice President
“The membership always has the last word when it comes to contract matters. They have spoken. Their endorsement of the deal with the AMPTP ends the uncertainty that has been hovering over us and allows Screen Actors Guild and the industry to move forward together.”

 

[M Most]

I noticed that you didn't include Alan Rosenberg's comment on the vote:

"The membership has spoken and has decided to work under the terms of this contract that many of us who have been involved in these negotiations from the beginning believe to be devastatingly unsatisfactory. (Wednesday) morning I will be contacting the elected leadership of the other talent unions with the hope of beginning a series of prenegotiation summit meetings in preparation for 2011. I call upon all SAG members to begin to ready themselves for the battle ahead."

Some people just won't take yes for an answer. The really crazy thing is that he just announced that he intends to run for another term as SAG president. Will these people never learn?

On another note, in the midst of being pleased about finally ending this nonsense, don't lose sight of the fact that two years from now, things are very likely to get exceedingly ugly, especially if the economy has rebounded by then. Be prepared.

 

[Casey Green]

? Alan Rosenbergs's statement is included in the article posted above.

What seems evident is that everyone knows this deal is not really fair, but I believe people voted for it just to get back to work with the idea of rallying together in two years.

Good luck.

 

[M Most]

Everyone knows this deal is not really fair, but I believe people voted for it just to get back to work with the idea of rallying together in two years.

Good luck.

What's not really fair about an agreement that gives members pay increases across the board at a time in history when "normal civilians" are taking pay cuts or losing jobs altogether?

 

[Alan Rosenfeld]

Rosenberg's comment is in the body of the article. It was a smart decison to take what is offered now and hope the future gets better. Theoretically the economy should be much better in two years and, more importantly, we should see what the new models of media distribution will return financially thereby putting SAG and AFTRA as well as the other craft unions in a much better negotiating position for 2011. The producers and distribution companies won't have the same excuses they had this time around. Meanwhile, people get back to work and all of us in the industry benefit.

 

[Casey Green]

What's not really fair about an agreement that gives members pay increases across the board at a time in history when "normal civilians" are taking pay cuts or losing jobs altogether?

Don't get me wrong, I am happy to see this pass so people can get back to work, but there are other factors that don't seem right...

Sometimes "fair" isn't the right term in cases like this. A poor economy should not be a bargaining tool for the producers.

It kind of reminds me of a scene from Star Wars:

Darth Vader: "Calrissian. Take the princess and the Wookie to my ship."
Lando: "You said they'd be left at the city under my supervision."
Darth Vader: "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

How is collective bargaining fair if the people are not able to bargain?

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

mmost, just thought I'd point out that there are plenty of "normal civilians" affected by this contract too

Have any of you read the contract? I can easily see why it may not be considered "fair" by many. But I think we should just be (very) happy that work will finally pick up around early July.

 

[M Most]

Sometimes "fair" isn't the right term in cases like this. A poor economy should not be a bargaining tool for the producers.....
How is collective bargaining fair if the people are not able to bargain?

I'm going to start this out by saying that I'm as pro-union as anyone here. I've been a member of IATSE Local 600 for quite a number of years. That said...

The contract was essentially the same contract that was on the table almost a year ago. That was before the monumental economic collapse, and the terms were not changed because of it. The contract's terms regarding new media were based on agreements that were concluded with the DGA, WGA, and AFTRA, all of whom seemed satisfied with both the numbers in the deal and the notion that nobody has yet figured out how - or if - new media can be monetized in the first place. There were also some real gains that were granted to all guilds beyond the new media provisions, like the opening up of certain books and new residual calculations. Beyond that, in the end, SAG's new leadership got the AMPTP to agree to a contract term that expires in lock step with all of the other guilds - a get that few believed they'd ever receive. Out of four guilds, the only one whose leadership balked was SAG, and they balked with the stated explanation being that actors are essentially entitled to more than everyone else. Rosenberg et. al. will claim they said "different" and not "more," but it's a matter of semantics, because AFTRA was quite satisfied with their deal, and gee, guess what, they also represent actors (performers as well, but the statement still stands). Their antagonistic, unbending approach caused the SAG membership to go without a contract for almost a year, costing them an awful lot of money in basic compensation alone, and more significantly, caused the guild (and its pension plan) to essentially lose their representation in television, as evidenced by the fact that about 90% of pilots this year were done under AFTRA contracts. That is self destruction of the highest order.

The bargaining was completed almost a year ago, and the notion that bargaining wasn't allowed or that the economy was used as a tool in that bargaining is ignoring the facts. The fact is that the contract was on the table a year ago, was acceptable to a sister union with similar interests, was based on formulae that were acceptable to other industry guilds, and that the real problem was a monumental miscalculation on the part of angry leadership that has now cost SAG a great deal of money and perhaps permanent second class status in television representation. Nice job, Alan.

 

[Casey Green]

While I agree with a lot of what you posted, I'm not so sure that just because other sister unions and/or guilds agree to a similar contract automatically means that it was a good deal.

SAG definitely went about this the wrong way, but I think it's very likely that AFTRA, WGA, DGA, and now SAG probably agreed to a deal that hurts them in the long run. (depending on if they can band together and show some solidarity in a couple of years.)

The contract's terms regarding new media were based on agreements that were concluded with the DGA, WGA, and AFTRA, all of whom seemed satisfied with both the numbers in the deal and the notion that nobody has yet figured out how - or if - new media can be monetized in the first place.

While it remains to be seen just how monetizing New Media develops, I'm pretty sure most people can see how traditional Television broadcast / advertising models are the ones that are shrinking and Cable and Internet are growing.

More and more people are watching shows via services such as iTunes, Hulu, and NetFlix, not to mention that set top boxes based on online connectivity, not cable or broadcast, are going to be bringing content into the living room through the internet, which will be considered New Media.

I am very happy that SAG reached a deal, as I am also pro-Union and have been working on Union shows for many years. The virtual stoppage in Features has hit home very hard.

But at the same time, I do believe that the economy (even a year ago) was a factor, and as time went on, it only helped the producers.

It remains to be seen if SAG will ultimately survive this. Here's hoping that something was learned from this and better decisions are made in the future.

 

[M Most]

SAG definitely went about this the wrong way, but I think it's very likely that AFTRA, WGA, DGA, and now SAG probably agreed to a deal that hurts them in the long run....

You're leaving out us (i.e., IATSE), who also have a new contract with similar terms, although the residuals go to the pension and health fund, not in our pockets.

While it remains to be seen just how monetizing New Media develops, I'm pretty sure most people can see how traditional Television broadcast / advertising models are the ones that are shrinking and Cable and Internet are growing.

More and more people are watching shows via services such as iTunes, Hulu, and NetFlix, not to mention that set top boxes based on online connectivity, not cable or broadcast, are going to be bringing content into the living room through the internet, which will be considered New Media.

While that's generally true, it seems you're stating this with the understanding that one will be replaced by the other, in terms of pure dollars. And I'm far from certain that is valid. The notion of constant growth is being greatly challenged by both the world economic collapse and technical advancements, and the ability to monetize something that consumers now expect for free is very questionable. To assume that the revenues from new media will ultimately compare to those generated by traditional media is, to my mind, being extremely over optimistic, as there is, to this point, no evidence that's the case. Personally, I think we're in for a long stretch of correction, in which many who have done well will just have to accept that they will now do, shall we say, less well. And those of us in the television and film industry will have to accept that the up side is not quite as up as it used to be. For all of the posts here about "democratization," what is usually overlooked is that another word for the same phenomenon is "cheapness," which means that for everything that's "democratized," there is less opportunity to make a good living doing it. I'm not saying it will all disappear tomorrow, but for guilds to think that the numbers generated from these things will ever be at the levels generated from traditional sources is to be unrealistic. That belief is not supported by the facts, and that, to me, is where SAG's original bargaining team went completely awry.

It remains to be seen if SAG will ultimately survive this. Here's hoping that something was learned from this and better decisions are made in the future.

I agree that SAG's survival at this point is not a given, and I would also say that to this point, they seem to be rather oblivious to that. As for something being learned, I'm not optimistic, at least based on history. I still say think about saving as much as you can for the next two years, because I really do expect the next round to be even uglier.

 

[Casey Green]

You're leaving out us (i.e., IATSE), who also have a new contract with similar terms, although the residuals go to the pension and health fund, not in our pockets.

But that's another story altogether... (Too bad the minimum hour requirement to maintain status went up this year). But I digress...

I would, however, like to know more about how the residuals work for us that you mentioned. As far as I knew, this amount was put into the pension and health plan once, and not recurring when shows rerun, etc..

To assume that the revenues from new media will ultimately compare to those generated by traditional media is, to my mind, being extremely over optimistic, as there is, to this point, no evidence that's the case.

I would think the entire music industry is plenty of evidence. iTunes (and many others) are now selling downloadable HD content - whether it be charged per download (iTunes), by subscription (NetFlix), or through built-in advertising (Hulu (NBC/Fox), Vevo (Universal), CBS.com, ABC.com, etc.).

It's only a matter of time IMHO.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

3G, Red Ray, and whatever other developments happen next will ultimately guide us to more convenient and controlled web based delivery. Actors perform, they have nothing to do with delivery and as such their agreement should automatically cover whatever the times dictate is the way to get their image and performances to consumers.

The contract was essentially the same contract that was on the table almost a year ago. That was before the monumental economic collapse, and the terms were not changed because of it.

Which means "they won". You always low ball when you are going into a bargaining war and have a corporatist brain or no use/desire for love from the other side.

 

[M Most]

But that's another story altogether... (Too bad the minimum hour requirement to maintain status went up this year).

Actually, that's a much bigger issue for the future. While the contract does stipulate more hours for health plan qualification, the wild card for unions in general is what happens regarding national health care. If the Obama administration can actually get health care reform done, one of the primary reasons for the strength of the union in a freelance business like ours is greatly minimized. That alone carries with it a multitude of implications we probably don't want to get into here.

I would think the entire music industry is plenty of evidence. iTunes (and many others) are now selling downloadable HD content - whether it be charged per download (iTunes), by subscription (NetFlix), or through built-in advertising (Hulu (NBC/Fox), Vevo (Universal), CBS.com, ABC.com, etc.).

I'm glad you brought that up, because while that's true, the end result of that change has been that the overall revenues have been greatly reduced as CD's have fallen out of favor. That, in turn, has drastically reduced royalties paid to artists, and the end result of that has been that many artists' primary source of income is now live performance and licensing (commercials, movies, etc.). Digital sales, while they've increased dramatically, don't come remotely close to what was (and, by the way, still is) generated by CD's. So in other words, musicians now rely far more on things other than actual unit sales of their music for the bulk of their income, as their combined income from hard sales and digital sales of their work has decreased significantly. Which, to me, supports everything that I said.

 

[Stephen Lovett]

I'm glad you brought that up, because while that's true, the end result of that change has been that the overall revenues have been greatly reduced as CD's have fallen out of favor. That, in turn, has drastically reduced royalties paid to artists, and the end result of that has been that many artists' primary source of income is now live performance and licensing (commercials, movies, etc.). Digital sales, while they've increased dramatically, don't come remotely close to what was (and, by the way, still is) generated by CD's. So in other words, musicians now rely far more on things other than actual unit sales of their music for the bulk of their income, as their combined income from hard sales and digital sales of their work has decreased significantly. Which, to me, supports everything that I said.

While a little bit of an apples to oranges comparison, I'd point out that this is true in the Macro view as well.

Specifically, I've had P&L visibility into lots of business/services including some of the largest internet based communication and content services, and almost all business models have been materially adversely effected, specifically wrt margins compared to their historical counterparts.

Think Exchange margins vs. Hotmail / Gmail, needle drop margins vs. something like productiontrax, serviced storage (netapp, emc) compared to S3.

I'm pretty challenged to come up with anything other than itunes that is actually making good margins, and those margins are principally going to Apple, not the content creation people.

It's unfortunate that we've done such a great job of building expectations for consumers that web based content and services are free. The uptake rate on premium level services (e.g. vimeo plus) is really minuscule for every service I've had visibility into.

Ask anybody except iTunes management where their site gets their money, and its from ads, not from sales.

Content delivery through Media Center for example is minimal, and other avenues that generate non ad based revenue streams for content are diminimus. (I could have a chat with the Netflix folks, but I'd bet that their streaming component is more of a cover the bases bet, not a business plan, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Given the XBox 360 component I have more hope there, but still...)

I'd really like Casey to be right.

And to further complicate matters, folks like us are doing our best to drive quality up with higher data rates, thus raising the bar (and subsequent distribution costs) for streaming / cached / download content.

It's going to be quite a ride. But IMHO, it's going to get harder not easier to keep a supportable amount of the dollars flowing to the professionals who generate the content.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

Steve

 

[Casey Green]

I'm glad you brought that up, because while that's true, the end result of that change has been that the overall revenues have been greatly reduced as CD's have fallen out of favor. That, in turn, has drastically reduced royalties paid to artists, and the end result of that has been that many artists' primary source of income is now live performance and licensing (commercials, movies, etc.). Digital sales, while they've increased dramatically, don't come remotely close to what was (and, by the way, still is) generated by CD's. So in other words, musicians now rely far more on things other than actual unit sales of their music for the bulk of their income, as their combined income from hard sales and digital sales of their work has decreased significantly. Which, to me, supports everything that I said.

While CD revenues have dropped tremendously, I believe that eventually not a few, but many many separate alternative revenue streams will combine to heavily outweigh what was possible through the traditional market. I see this also happening in the television and movie industries - but all in good time.

 

[Alan Rosenfeld]

While CD revenues have dropped tremendously, I believe that eventually not a few, but many many separate alternative revenue streams will combine to heavily outweigh what was possible through the traditional market. I see this also happening in the television and movie industries - but all in good time.

Its already happening.

CD's replaced cassettes which replaced 8-tracks which replaced reel to reel which replaced LP's which replaced 78's which replaced wax cylinders, etc. Delivery is secondary, the trick is to get the consumer to buy the artistic product.

I saw a presentation recently on how the digital cinema initiative is being built out. Now it is just a question of using more advanced tricks like 3D and holographics along with compelling stories to keep folks coming to theaters. Second is to figure how to monetize in home entertainment delivery in the age of download/streaming. They will...

 

[M Most]

While CD revenues have dropped tremendously, I believe that eventually not a few, but many many separate alternative revenue streams will combine to heavily outweigh what was possible through the traditional market. I see this also happening in the television and movie industries - but all in good time.

We'll agree to disagree. My feeling about it is: good luck with that.

Personally, I think you've been reading too many Chris Anderson articles...:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Casey Green]

My theory is that it all will eventually mostly be subscription based.

Look at services such as Rhapsody:

"Listen to as much as you want to from our catalog of millions of tracks. You get commercial-free Channels, instant playlist sharing, and a whole lot
more."

$12.99 / month

Everytime a song is played, a percentage goes to the artist. (Almost like on-demand Radio of sorts)

While this may seem like there isn't nearly as much profit to be made (and nothing close compared to what artists used to take in per CD), you must factor in that there are many more people who can instantly download content, and these days there are so many more devices in which to listen and watch said content on.

In the past, VHS decks and DVD Players were pretty much the main stream choice for films. Now a days, in addition to DVD / Blu-Ray, we have Computers / Laptops, Smart Phones, Portable Media Players, Game Systems, In Flight Movie screens, etc . When it all adds up, I think we may see a very profitable market again.

...and I love the "Birdman", especially when he swats that weak stuff into the 10th row.

(Wired Magazine is fun too). :wink: