Strike Fears Allayed, SAG/AFTRA Now Just in It For the Slap Fights
Posted by Defamer Hollywood at 2:00 AM on July 10, 2008
The nuclear labour plume at left is presented a little closer to actual size this morning, the start of the first full day without the specter of strike hell exhaling waves of rancid breath over Hollywood. Not that AFTRA's ratification of its prime-time contract Monday evening vanquishes the SAG threat altogether; the 62.4% tally in favour of AFTRA's deal with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers suggests that while a strike vote might fail, SAG leadership convinced probably upwards of 10,000 AFTRA members to stand down in the pitched battle between unions.
That's a lot under any circumstances (most contracts pass with at least 90% approval). But while it's not likely enough to get the studios to sweeten its offer to SAG, it is enough for the union leaders to have one last healthy, fun whack at each other, starting with SAG boss Alan Rosenberg:
Clearly many Screen Actors Guild members responded to our education and outreach campaign and voted against the inadequate AFTRA agreement. We knew AFTRA would appeal to its many AFTRA-only members, who are news people, sportscasters and DJs, to pass the tentative agreement covering acting jobs. ...Screen Actors Guild is the actors union with more than 95% of the work under this contract, jurisdiction over all motion pictures, and over 4 billion dollars in member earnings under the SAG agreement over just the last three years. ...
We will continue to address the issues of importance to actors that AFTRA left on the table and we remain committed to achieving a fair contract for SAG actors.
AFTRA president Roberta Reardon was a little more constructive, calling for more collaboration and advance talks before future negotiations — but not before claiming a "moral victory" and punching Rosenberg squarely in his prop-shop codpiece:
Clearly, this was not a typical ratification process, and it would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise. To those of us for whom labour solidarity is more than just a slogan, the idea that politically-motivated leaders of one union would use their members' dues to attack another union is unconscionable. Working people do not benefit when their union is under attack.
It's OK, Roberta — this crap has only been going on for 60 years now. Keep your mushroom clouds handy: Hollywood Strikewatch 2011, here we come!
- AFTRA accepts deal [Variety]
- AFTRA Members Ratify AMPTP Contract [DHD]

Comments (AU Comments · US Comments)
There are currently no AU comments for this post.
hummingpenguin
Posted 2:45 AM 10/7/08
@Losin_it: No, not social justice, just people getting paid for their work.
@Hubert Cumberdale: Fair enough :) It's just that even union-baiting in jest gets my hackles up.
hummingpenguin
Hubert Cumberdale
Posted 2:36 AM 10/7/08
@CourageousCoward: Celebrities deserve no money. Their 20 million dollar check should be sufficient. Actors and actresses deserve more money. This cannot be accomplished with SAG, so, well, rama rama ding dong.
Hubert Cumberdale
Losin_it
Posted 2:28 AM 10/7/08
@hummingpenguin: That's true, but like professional athletes, it's still not always easy to associate the plight of actors with the struggles of the working class. Yes, actors should organize and have a voice. But I doubt if social justice is really much at issue here.
Losin_it
CourageousCoward
Posted 2:27 AM 10/7/08
@Hubert Cumberdale: Define "actors." Like, does Spencer Pratt and the rest of the "actors" on the Hills need (deserve) more money? Does Tom Hanks need more money? Or is it just the working stiffs we're talking about?
CourageousCoward
Hubert Cumberdale
Posted 2:24 AM 10/7/08
@hummingpenguin: I know. Please don't ever take me seriously on Defamer.
Hubert Cumberdale
hummingpenguin
Posted 2:21 AM 10/7/08
@Hubert Cumberdale: Well, this is about the middle rung of working actors who pretty much don't eat without decent residual checks coming in every month. It's not fair to dismiss the whole lot of them because a tiny few happen to be fabulously wealthy.
hummingpenguin
Hubert Cumberdale
Posted 2:14 AM 10/7/08
Actors really need more money. They really do!
Hubert Cumberdale
KittyCarlisle
Posted 2:22 PM 10/7/08
@hummingpenguin
you tell 'em.
Believe you me, Tom Hanks et al don't ever sweat if their scale plus 10 will make their nut this month.
Streep, Sally Field, The Cloonster - They aren't terribly concerned that residuals are completely eliminated in "new media" under the proposed AMPTP contract.
All those supposed proletariat-friendly big guns who care about production continuing so "the little guy" doesn't get hurt - turns out they mean craft service and transpo.
Oh, and, um...them. Cause they're producers.
Clearly, long as they get theirs, rank and file working actors can go suck eggs. Or producers.
KittyCarlisle