FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

On the Prospects for a SAG Strike

by DAVID MACARAY

Despite their tough talk and ominous saber-rattling, everyone expects the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) to eventually reach a settlement with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), rather than go on strike, as they’ve threatened.

In fact, everyone is saying that there’s virtually zero chance of a SAG walkout.  Why?  Because, according to conventional wisdom, Hollywood is suffering from serious “strike fatigue” (the recent writers strike lasted a debilitating 100 days) and because the nation’s economy is in no condition to heal itself, much less absorb a major industry shutdown.

Also, there’s the follow-the-leader or “inertia” argument.  It’s irrational and glib, but the advice SAG has been getting goes something like this:  The writers have settled; the directors have settled; AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) has settled; and now, even though you didn’t get everything you wanted, it’s your turn to step up to the plate and take what the AMPTP has offered.

Simple as it sounds, it’s a little more complicated than that.  What SAG is asking for in these contract negotiations is not only vitally important for building a foundation for future bargains, it’s eminently reasonable.  While actors work in the same industry as writers and directors, the requirements and needs of each guild don’t necessarily coincide.

Unlike writers and directors (or radio personalities), actors make their living off their images.  Getting paid for the studios’ use of those images makes perfectly good sense; allowing the studios to use those images at their discretion, free of charge, without some structured form of compensation, makes no sense at all.

The Actors also realize that, despite their denials, the Producers have the extra money to pony up.  The fact that the AMPTP is pretending to be nervous, claiming that it’s too early to know where this so-called New Media market is headed, and is peddling doom and gloom predictions for the entertainment industry, is almost insulting.

Just because management (in any industry, under any conditions) can always be expected to downplay its profitability during contract negotiations doesn’t make the AMPTP’s poor-mouthing any less annoying.  Global demand for American movies is staggering.  In the last 5 years, going back to 2003, Hollywood has earned more money in foreign markets than it had in the previous 70 years combined, and those markets are continuing to grow exponentially.  The entertainment future is gloriously bright.

But SAG does have a slight problem, one which—because it’s an internal, parliamentary issue—hasn’t drawn much attention.  According to SAG bylaws, a full 75 percent of the membership is required to give strike authorization.  That’s an extraordinary mandate, especially considering that most unions require only a simple majority (50% plus one) for a strike vote.

Getting three-fourths approval for anything is a formidable task . . . from deciding on where to eat dinner to what color carpet to put in the living room.  Think about it.  Most U.S. presidential elections fall into the 55-45 percent range; a 60-40 percent victory (e.g., Reagan’s 61-39 defeat of Mondale) is considered a landslide.

Accordingly, for Congress to pass a bill, a simple majority is required, and for the Senate to approve a treaty, a two-thirds vote is needed.  The only time a three-fourths mandate is required is when they do something like add an amendment to the Constitution.

A strike vote is easy to obtain, almost automatic in fact, when the membership sees it, more or less, as a “symbolic” gesture, as a means of provoking the company, of scaring them into sweetening their offer.  When a strike vote is seen as symbolic, it’s not uncommon to get a 90 percent mandate.  But when a vote is perceived as being the prelude to an actual strike (which it will likely appear to SAG members), it’s a whole other deal.

Indeed, it’s that very dynamic that causes management to hope that the union negotiating team takes an inferior final offer back to the membership and has them vote on it, rather than have the guts to call a strike on their own.  Politically, from the union’s point of view, it’s safer to let old-fashioned democracy prevail and place the decision in the hands of membership, even at the risk of them ratifying a patently inferior contract, than to call a strike on their own.

In any event, it’s going to be very interesting to see how SAG negotiations proceed from this point.  The lines have been drawn.  The Alliance is showing no signs of being willing to come off what they’ve called their “last, best and final” offer, and SAG leadership, so far at least, is sticking to its guns, promising to take this thing all the way.

Ultimately, whether it’s a strike vote or an actual contract presented to them for ratification (with or without the union’s recommendation) it will be up to SAG membership to decide their own fate.

DAVID MACARAY, a Los Angeles playwright and writer, was a former labor union rep.  He can be reached at dmacaray@earthlink.net

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

David Macaray is a playwright and author. His newest book is How To Win Friends and Avoid Sacred Cows.  He can be reached at dmacaray@gmail.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

February 20, 2017
Bruce E. Levine
Humiliation Porn: Trump’s Gift to His Faithful…and Now the Blowback
Melvin Goodman
“Wag the Dog,” Revisited
Robert Hunziker
Fukushima: a Lurking Global Catastrophe?
David Smith-Ferri
Resistance and Resolve in Russia: Memorial HRC
Kenneth Surin
Global India?
Norman Pollack
Fascistization Crashing Down: Driving the Cleaver into Social Welfare
Patrick Cockburn
Trump v. the Media: a Fight to the Death
Susan Babbitt
Shooting Arrows at Heaven: Why is There Debate About Battle Imagery in Health?
Matt Peppe
New York Times Openly Promotes Formal Apartheid Regime By Israel
David Swanson
Understanding Robert E. Lee Supporters
Michael Brenner
The Narcissism of Donald Trump
Martin Billheimer
Capital of Pain
Thomas Knapp
Florida’s Shenanigans Make a Great Case for (Re-)Separation of Ballot and State
Jordan Flaherty
Best Films of 2016: Black Excellence Versus White Mediocrity
Weekend Edition
February 17, 2017
Friday - Sunday
David Price
Rogue Elephant Rising: The CIA as Kingslayer
Matthew Stevenson
Is Trump the Worst President Ever?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Flynn?
John Wight
Brexit and Trump: Why Right is Not the New Left
Diana Johnstone
France: Another Ghastly Presidential Election Campaign; the Deep State Rises to the Surface
Neve Gordon
Trump’s One-State Option
Roger Harris
Emperor Trump Has No Clothes: Time to Organize!
Joan Roelofs
What Else is Wrong with Globalization
Andrew Levine
Why Trump’s Muslim Travel Ban?
Mike Whitney
Blood in the Water: the Trump Revolution Ends in a Whimper
Vijay Prashad
Trump, Turmoil and Resistance
Ron Jacobs
U.S. Imperial War Personified
David Swanson
Can the Climate Survive Adherence to War and Partisanship?
Andre Vltchek
Governor of Jakarta: Get Re-elected or Die!
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Destruction of Mosul
Norman Pollack
Self-Devouring Reaction: Governmental Impasse
Steve Horn
What Do a Louisiana Pipeline Explosion and Dakota Access Pipeline Have in Common? Phillips 66
Brian Saady
Why Corporations are Too Big to Jail in the Drug War
Graham Peebles
Ethiopia: Peaceful Protest to Armed Uprising
Luke Meyer
The Case of Tony: Inside a Lifer Hearing
Binoy Kampmark
Adolf, The Donald and History
Robert Koehler
The Great American Awakening
Murray Dobbin
Canadians at Odds With Their Government on Israel
Fariborz Saremi
A Whole New World?
Joyce Nelson
Japan’s Abe, Trump & Illegal Leaks
Christopher Brauchli
Trump 1, Tillerson 0
Yves Engler
Is This Hate Speech?
Dan Bacher
Trump Administration Exempts Three CA Oil Fields From Water Protection Rule at Jerry Brown’s Request
Richard Klin
Solid Gold
Melissa Garriga
Anti-Abortion and Anti-Fascist Movements: More in Common Than Meets the Eye
Thomas Knapp
The Absurd Consequences of a “Right to Privacy”
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail