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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

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

January 16, 2018
Mark Schuller
What is a “Shithole Country” and Why is Trump So Obsessed With Haiti?
Paul Street
Notes From a “Shithole” Superpower
Louisa Willcox
Keeper of the Flame for Wilderness: Stewart “Brandy” Brandborg
Mike Whitney
Trump’s Sinister Plan to Kill the Iranian “Nukes” Deal
Franklin Lamb
Kafkaesque Impediments to Challenging Iran’s Theocracy
Norman Solomon
Why Senator Cardin is a Fitting Opponent for Chelsea Manning
Fred Gardner
GI Coffeehouses Recalled: a Compliment From General Westmoreland
Brian Terrell
Solidarity from Central Cellblock to Guantanamo
Don Fitz
Bondage Scandal: Looking Beneath the Surface
Rob Seimetz
#Resist Co-opting “Shithole”
Ted Rall
Trump Isn’t Unique
January 15, 2018
Rob Urie
Democrats and the End(s) of Politics
Paul Tritschler
Killing Floor: the Business of Animal Slaughter
Mike Garrity
In Targeting the Lynx, the Trump Administration Defies Facts, Law, and Science Once Again
Thomas Hon Wing Polin
Hong Kong Politics: a Never-Ending Farce
Uri Avnery
Bibi’s Son (Or Three Men in a Car)
Dave Lindorff
Yesterday’s ‘Shithole Countries’ Can Become Classy Places Donald, and Vice Versa
Jeff Mackler
Lesser Evil Politics in Alabama
Jonah Raskin
Typewriters Still Smoking? An Interview with Underground Press Maven John Campbell McMillan
Jose-Antonio Orosco
Trump’s Comments Recall a Racist Past in Immigration Policy
David Macaray
Everything Seems to Be Going South
Kathy Kelly
41 Hearts Beating in Guantanamo
Weekend Edition
January 12, 2018
Friday - Sunday
George Burchett
Wormwood and a Shocking Secret of War: How Errol Morris Vindicated My Father, Wilfred Burchett
Roberto J. González
Starting Them Young: Is Facebook Hooking Children on Social Media?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Between the Null and the Void
Andrew Levine
Trump After Bannon: What Next?
John Davis
Mud-Slide
Ajamu Baraka
The Responsibility to Protect the World … from the United States
Robert Hunziker
Global Warming Stirs the Methane Monster
Paul Street
Lazy Liberals and “the Trump Effect”
Carmen Rodriguez
Trump’s Attack on Salvadoran Migrants
Mike Whitney
Oprah for President, Really?
Francisco Cabanillas
The Hurricane After Maria
Luciana Bohne
World War I: Crime and Punishment
Steve Martinot
The Ideology of Pepper Spray: Force and Violence in a Can
Martin Billheimer
Beyond the 120 Days of the Silicon Valley Dolls
Patrick T. Hiller
An Olympic Glimmer on the Horizon – North Korea and South Korea Stepping Down the Escalation Ladder
Ron Jacobs
The Vietnamese War: a Different Take
Binoy Kampmark
Fuming in the White House: the Bannon-Trump Implosion
Joseph Natoli
What to Worry About and What Not to Worry About
Colin Todhunter
Monsanto, Bayer and Neoliberalism: A Case of Hobson’s Choice
Brian Cloughley
Trump’s Bullying of Cuba
Kenneth Surin
Bigger in Texas
Arturo Desimone
The Untouchable Leader Who Stood Up to Gandhi
Peter Crowley
To Cheerleaders of Iran Protests: Iran is Not Our Enemy, a Sponsor of Terror or a Tyranny
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail