SGA and possible SAG (Screen Actors Guild) Strike

[prion]

Dec 16 2008

VARIETY
http://www.variety.com/VR1117997396.html

excerpt:

Stars send anti-strike letter to SAG
A-listers cite weakening economy as incentive
By DAVE MCNARY, MIKE FLAHERTY

Looks like the "no" side is mobilizing the star power.

As SAG called off its emergency Friday board meeting, more than 130 stars -- including George Clooney, Matt Damon and Tom Hanks -- have strongly urged SAG members to vote down the guild's strike authorization.

The list also includes Alan Alda, Jason Alexander, Alec Baldwin, Steve Carell, Billy Crystal, Cameron Diaz, Sally Field, Morgan Freeman, Jeremy Irons, Helen Hunt, Diane Lane, Helen Mirren, Kevin Spacey and Charlize Theron, along with former SAG presidents Patty Duke, Melissa Gilbert and William Schallert.

In a letter sent Monday to leaders of the Screen Actors Guild, the stars said a strike would create more economic hardship and called for SAG to unite with other Hollywood unions in three years. Doing so would be a way to "take the high road," they added.


REST AT LINK ABOVE

[leiasky]

For those of us who work and make a living in this industry, another strike coming on the heels of the WGA strike earlier in the year would be detrimental to those below the line (read, NOT 'A' list stars) who depend on every little penny to survive.

I wholeheartedly supported the WGA strike. Even marched on the front lines with them. The AMTPT usually has a good relationship with SAG and for talks to have broken down they must really not like what they've been offered as a compromise. We don't need more economic hardship (because a strike doesn't just put actors out of work, it puts EVERYONE who works on a production out of work) but I'd be hard pressed not to vote in favor of the strike.

[Night Marshal]

As an outsider observer is hard to see how Hollywood could weather another strike things might be bad in most places around America economically but its worse in California. As John Batchelor said "if you have a Job its a recession if you don't have a job its a depression." And this would leave a lot of people without jobs. The main hope is both sides can come to fair terms because both will bet hurt in another strike maybe more than many companies can recover from.

[prion]

For those of us who work and make a living in this industry, another strike coming on the heels of the WGA strike earlier in the year would be detrimental to those below the line (read, NOT 'A' list stars) who depend on every little penny to survive.

I wholeheartedly supported the WGA strike. Even marched on the front lines with them. The AMTPT usually has a good relationship with SAG and for talks to have broken down they must really not like what they've been offered as a compromise. We don't need more economic hardship (because a strike doesn't just put actors out of work, it puts EVERYONE who works on a production out of work) but I'd be hard pressed not to vote in favor of the strike.

Definitely understand. A strike right now would be horrible, but to lose the residuals with online material is also awful. 'Upper management,' for lack of a better description, isn't keen on sharing the wealth.

There are very few actors who are rich (same with book authors). Many actors have second or third jobs, anything to make ends meet, and California and Vancouver aren't cheap places to live.

[prion]

Dec 16 2008

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...goryid=14&cs=1

Fox TV delivers blow to SAG
News Corp. attempts AFTRA contract swap

excerpt:

For the past three decades, Hollywood has usually opted for SAG deals on scripted primetime fare, with SAG and AFTRA master contracts containing identical terms because the two unions had jointly negotiated the contract. But after years of jurisdictional battles, AFTRA split in March from SAG for this round of negotiations. As a result, AFTRA's deal contains more generous terms than SAG's expired contract along with new-media residuals for the first time.

Fox's move came a day after SAG's strike authorization had been blasted on two fronts -- a letter from 130 high-profile members including George Clooney and Tom Hanks and at a raucous New York townhall meeting.

SAG remained resolute by sending a message to members that noted the authorization has received support from more than 1,500 members over three days who have signed a solidarity statement. The missive also stressed that SAG leaders are addressing the concerns of "rank and file" members as opposed to the concerns of stars.



REST AT LINK ABOVE

[leiasky]

United they stand. Divided they fall. This is just not a good thing. To get the AMTPT to bend at all, they have to stick together. *sigh*

[VSS]

Just out of curiosity, I wonder if SGU has a contract with SAG? Is that controlled by the networks? Since Carlyle is from the UK, it made me wonder.

[prion]

Just out of curiosity, I wonder if SGU has a contract with SAG? Is that controlled by the networks? Since Carlyle is from the UK, it made me wonder.

A lot would depend if they hire a US actor (SAG) member to be Col. Young (of course, it depends if Young will last past a few episodes too ). If there are no SAG members on the show, which seems doubtful, then I would think production would proceed. I don't think Actra will have much solidarity with SAG at this point in time considering how SAG and Aftra are sniping at each other.

Many Canadian actors are dual SAG/Actra members (like David Hewlett).

As for Carlyle, he did work on "24," but that could also have been on a work visa. As for Canada, not sure if he'd go through Actra or SAG. It does seem rather odd that they'd hire out of the UK and not the US, considering how they did SG1 and SGA.

[VSS]

A lot would depend if they hire a US actor (SAG) member to be Col. Young (of course, it depends if Young will last past a few episodes too ). If there are no SAG members on the show, which seems doubtful, then I would think production would proceed. I don't think Actra will have much solidarity with SAG at this point in time considering how SAG and Aftra are sniping at each other.

Many Canadian actors are dual SAG/Actra members (like David Hewlett).

As for Carlyle, he did work on "24," but that could also have been on a work visa. As for Canada, not sure if he'd go through Actra or SAG. It does seem rather odd that they'd hire out of the UK and not the US, considering how they did SG1 and SGA.

Thank you for your reply. I'd read that some new series were considering going with AFTRA or ACTRA to avoid the issue of a strike, and I wondered if hiring Carlyle could be a hint of that strategy. I don't really care about SGU, I just don't want anything to hold up the filming of the movies, including a delay in the start of SGU.

Assuming the strike doesn't last until summer, of course.

[prion]

Thank you for your reply. I'd read that some new series were considering going with AFTRA or ACTRA to avoid the issue of a strike, and I wondered if hiring Carlyle could be a hint of that strategy. I don't really care about SGU, I just don't want it to hold up the filming of the movies, assuming a strike doesn't last until summer.

There is that possibility, which would mean that they'd have to hire strictly AFTRA/ACTRA performers, which would unfortunately be biased against any SAG actors It does make me wonder how could affect the tax status of the production, as it's an MGM/Skiffy production (right?), based out of the States, and they will need to have some U.S. actors in it, I believe, if they want certain tax stuff. (It's all too complicated, but every series I've seen made by a US conglom in Canada has always been toplined by an American/US actor).

[VSS]

There is that possibility, which would mean that they'd have to hire strictly AFTRA/ACTRA performers, which would unfortunately be biased against any SAG actors It does make me wonder how could affect the tax status of the production, as it's an MGM/Skiffy production (right?), based out of the States, and they will need to have some U.S. actors in it, I believe, if they want certain tax stuff. (It's all too complicated, but every series I've seen made by a US conglom in Canada has always been toplined by an American/US actor).

It seems to me that if they chose their one or two most important roles carefully and avoided the SAG, there's plenty of younger/unknown talent to fill in the remainder of the roles, and that could certainly be supplied by non-SAG unions. The tax implications I have no clue whatsoever about! But I agree, the other main person in SGU will be American, simply because that's Skiffy's market.

[TheRandomOne]

The SAG actors & actresses are taking sides now. Is there word on what side our Stargate SAG members are on ? I would think most would want to strike but given how bad the economy is right now if you have a job KEEP IT. Now is just not the time to strike

[leiasky]

It seems to me that if they chose their one or two most important roles carefully and avoided the SAG, there's plenty of younger/unknown talent to fill in the remainder of the roles, and that could certainly be supplied by non-SAG unions. The tax implications I have no clue whatsoever about! But I agree, the other main person in SGU will be American, simply because that's Skiffy's market.

For a US production to film in Canada there are certain talent and crew restrictions they must follow.

[leiasky]

The SAG actors & actresses are taking sides now. Is there word on what side our Stargate SAG members are on ? I would think most would want to strike but given how bad the economy is right now if you have a job KEEP IT. Now is just not the time to strike

I'm not sure I want to know, really. There is no right and wrong answer here. A strike may help for future contract negotiations, but it will also put a lot of people out of work in the short term and have longer term ramifications.

[prion]

I'm not sure I want to know, really. There is no right and wrong answer here. A strike may help for future contract negotiations, but it will also put a lot of people out of work in the short term and have longer term ramifications.

The only way you'd find out who's on what side if it's reported in the press. Mostly, it's the "A" list actors - those that don't have to worry about work as they've made enough to sit on for months.

I can understand both sides point of view - it's a hard place to be in either case.