* Are the AMPTP DGA, WGA, AFTRA, and the SAG proposed contracts nearly identical? And does SAG want a better deal than the other three, as Nick Counter claims? Also the latest media coverage on negotiations.

Before we analyze the contracts mentioned in our headline, let’s look at a recent trade paper article.

---

Screen Actors Guild members waited anxiously over the weekend to find out if they would have the opportunity to grant their leaders the authority to call a strike — an invaluable bargaining tool that could help turn the stalled negotiations on a new television and film contract with producers in the actors' favor.

Boy there’s a switch, a trade paper calling a strike authorization an invaluable tool that could help turn stalled negotiations in actors’ favor.

However, SAG's national board of directors did not emerge from the Marriott in downtown Los Angeles Oct. 19 — after almost 30 hours of meetings — intending to ask the rank and file for strike authorization. Instead, it resolved to invite a federal mediator into its talks with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers and granted the guild's negotiating committee the power to call for strike authorization if mediation fails. "We hope mediation will move this process forward," SAG president Alan Rosenberg said in a written statement. "Economic times are tough for all Americans, but we must take a stand for what is fair."

The negotiating committee had recommended three weeks earlier that the board call for a strike authorization vote, even though the committee already has the ability to send a referendum to members. In an Oct. 1 statement, the committee told the 71-member board, "The AMPTP and the employers will only seriously engage in further negotiations after the members of the guild express their confidence in their leadership by authorizing them to take all actions necessary to protect the interests of members, including a strike.... A strike authorization vote of the membership is necessary to overcome the employers' intransigence...."

Because SAG’s negotiating team, with a Membership First majority, referred the strike authorization back to the newly formulated SAG National Board, in order to let them be the final authority, they have taken heat from their political adversaries for passing the buck. Of course, the reality is if they had not done so, they would have been criticized, by those same adversaries, for sending out a strike authorization request to the membership without checking with the newly constituted board. I think the term is “Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t!”

Now the board has in essence lobbed the decision back to the negotiating committee, and the producers do not seem to be wavering. In response to SAG's call for mediation, the AMPTP said Oct. 19, "No matter what SAG does — whether it be authorizing a strike or following a different approach — it will not change the harsh reality that currently confronts our industry."

Actually the harsh reality is that our board’s decision to couple a mediator with a potential strike authorization, has put Nick and the gang between a PR rock and a hard place. Sorry, Nick you ain’t dealing with AFTRA now.

A source close to the producers said Oct. 20 that Juan Carlos Gonzalez of Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services in Glendale, Calif., had contacted the AMPTP and that the producers are considering using him as a mediator. Gonzalez mediated negotiations between the Writers Guild of America and the AMPTP before the 100-day writers strike.

No Stock Answers

The question of whether actors would grant SAG the authority to strike has been weighing on many minds in the industry. Hollywood — like most Americans — has hit hard times. Some media executives, such as News Corp. president and chief operating officer Peter Chernin and Viacom president and CEO Philippe Dauman, have tried to assure investors that the entertainment industry will remain strong despite a recession.

Ah, a recession and a strike? Perhaps, guys, you need to take all those rollbacks off the table, you think?

But current events paint a different picture. Although media company stock prices have rebounded slightly in the past week or so, many conglomerates have seen their shares plummet to all-time lows — losing as much as 70 percent of their value. NBC Universal president and CEO Jeff Zucker announced Oct. 17 that his company would cut $500 million — roughly 3 percent — from its 2009 budget.

Look, SAG made the AMPTP a deal in new media that was basically “you make money then we make money. You don’t make money then we don’t make money.” Instead of money made calculated on three percent of TV/Theatrical minimum, SAG asked that we get a percentage of what they make on new media. Therefore, like I said, if they made no money, we’d make no money. They said “NO!” Hey, times were good then and they turned it down. Well…maybe now they might reconsider, ah, that is if they really think that they won’t make money in new media. But, but…

Zucker blamed the economy for the cuts. Paramount also announced it will reduce its number of annual releases by 20 percent, from 25 to 20. Media mogul Sumner Red stone sold $233 million worth of shares in Viacom and CBS Corp. earlier this month to meet debt payments, and according to financial analysts he may have to sell more.

Since the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in September, the AMPTP has urged SAG to accept its final offer, which includes the same terms for new-media pay and residuals that the WGA, the Directors Guild of America, and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists have already accepted. The producers have also hinted they could rescind their final offer if the economy worsens.

But, but…do the previous deals include the same terms for new media as the ones offered to SAG? More on that later.

Hmmm, shouldn’t the same Ol’ song designation been applied before that part about Producers rescinding their final offer, after all they have been singing it for years? Just a thought..

A former SAG board member who participated in the 2000 commercials contract negotiations — which resulted in a six-month strike — said the AMPTP is using the economy as an excuse to shield its true motives: "If it were a great economy, you'd hear the same thing…. The AMPTP just doesn't want to pay residuals. That's what this is all about. They've almost gotten away with it."

Not only do they not want to pay residuals but they want rollback terms that have been in the TV/Theatrical contract for over a half of a century.

The former board member, who requested anonymity, along with SAG leaders and Membership First supporters argue that accepting the deal as is, could mean the end of residuals as actors know them. They maintain that the final offer's residuals formula for new media will eventually overtake the more lucrative formulas for TV and features, because prime time and cable content is increasingly rebroadcast on the Internet. According to SAG's September negotiations update, under the AMPTP's offer a SAG member who works for one day on a new TV show could make only about $44 in residuals from a year's worth of Internet streaming of the program.

It ain’t eventually, it’s happening right now. Under the AMPTP proposal when the primetime scripted show you did, which get’s you day-players $759 dollars, is moved over to the internet for streaming, you will get nothing for the first 17/24 days of streaming, and only then will you get a whooping 23 bucks for the rest of the year for unlimited replays—course, it ain’t quite that bad for you guest stars who would normally get 3300 hundred bucks for a network rerun—hey you’ll get up to a whooping ONE HUNDRED AND FIVE BUCKS. Can you say goodbye to pension and health coverage. But, but…hold on Dog that won’t happen for years to come! Oh really? This from a NY Times article written by Brain Stelter:

Take “Heroes,” NBC’s signature drama. The season’s second episode of “Heroes,” on Sept. 29, was viewed about 17 million times, NBC estimates. Television viewing accounted for 12.8 million of those views. Online streams added 4 million views to the total

Kind of tells you why SAG is not calling it “new” media, but, rather, “NOW” media, don’t it?

"Everything will eventually be shown to you through a platform known as new media — whether it's today, in five years, or 10 years," the former board member said. "This decision is as important as the decision we had to get residuals in the first place. Residuals are what allow actors to be actors until they get a huge contract."

Board member Frances Fisher, who is also part of the Membership First slate, said actors would no longer be able to earn a living under the proposed residuals formula. "Striking is not something that I want to do or that anyone else on this planet wants to do," she said. "But when the deal is so bad that we're not going to be able to make a living anyway, what is the difference? If we agree to this deal, I won't be able to earn a living, and I'm in a pretty good position given the extremes that actors are in. I'm a middle-class actor, but I will not be able to earn a living unless I get really lucky."

One Working actor was persuaded by producers that they could always renegotiate a new Home video formula in three years. No, he wasn’t an actor in these negotiations, but, rather, actor Bowie Wuz Irong back in the Early Eighties when SAG gave producers the infamous 80/20 split on Home Video--which they have refused to renegotiate over a quarter of a century later.

Fisher urged actors to think beyond their short-term economic woes: "There wasn't health care without a strike; there weren't residuals without a strike. Every gain we've made was with a strike. And it came on the backs of actors and actresses who came before us. We can't selfishly think, 'Oh, I'm going to have a hard time.'"

However, Back Stage spoke with several actors who said they are more concerned with staying afloat in the midst of the global economic crisis. A SAG-AFTRA voiceover performer who requested anonymity said the guild should have sought strike authorization earlier in negotiations: SAG "concluded that it didn't have a prayer because the writers strike had just ended and people were still picking themselves back up…. The timing wasn't right then. But how has the timing gotten better now? I don't see it." He added that he doesn't know whether he would vote for strike authorization: "I'm very torn. It breaks my heart to think that I wouldn't vote to authorize it, but this is one of those rare cases where I might not."

You can understand members fears, but our voice guy is exactly the reason we have a union. There are those who let their fears and immediate needs interfere with their logic and overall best interests.

A longtime SAG member in New York wrote to Back Stage via email, "We should have had a deal this past summer. The Hollywood Membership First leadership has screwed up this negotiation big-time and in the process hurt all SAG members. I hope the federal mediator gets on this right away."

This guy is a different kind of member. He obviously isn’t interested in the best interest of his fellow members but, rather, interested in forwarding his anti-Membership First agenda no matter the cost.

A dual cardholder based in Hollywood wrote in an email, "I would not vote for strike authorization. As Kenny Rogers sang, 'You gotta know when to hold 'em/Know when to fold 'em/Know when to walk away/Know when to run.' If this is the best deal we can get, then let's park our egos at the door, bite the bullet, and get on with our craft."

Yikes! This one is using Kenny Rogers as an excuse to fold’em. As for getting on with our craft, here’s a tip for our compliant friend. If, we take this deal, our primary craft may very well be saying, “Would you like soup or salad with that?”

The former board member previously quoted said actors who would vote against strike authorization "haven't been told the facts…. The reality is you're giving up your ability to ever have a career, so that you might pay your gas bill today. And that's the mentality of anybody who says no."

Would you vote for strike authorization? To vote in our readers' poll, visit www.backstage.com/polls.

---

So are Nick's deals nearly identical?

And is SAG asking for a better deal than the ones achieved?

It will be very difficult to reach an agreement if SAG continues to insist unreasonably that it deserves a better deal than the ones achieved by the other entertainment Guilds during far better economic times.

So what if SAG is trying to achieve a better deal than other unions? There is no Favored Nations provision written into the AMPTP/SAG agreement. Do you think that the AMPTP would volunteer to inform SAG that they had given another union a better deal than SAG in order to reach parity in contracts. Yeah, right”

Item: It was 20 years before SAG discovered that writers and directors had their P&H added to their moveover cable residuals, while SAG members did not--and had to pay their own P&H out of those residueals.

Having said that, is the AMPTP being truthful. Is SAG asking for a better deal than the other three guilds: The DGA, WGA and AFTRA?

Let’s look at the particulars starting with “Consent of Clips” at the time of employment. The writers and directors don’t have the same issues involved in regards to consent of clips. Their images won’t be inserted into new media productions by God Knows Who? So, obviously in regard to clips to say SAG is asking for a better deal is like comparing apples and oranges. In the case of clip consent, SAG is not asking for a better deal, but rather balking at a rollback, in order to preserve a provision that has been in its collective bargaing agreement with the AMPTP since 1961.

Here’s the deal AFTRA signed with the AMPTP regarding members consent in the use of excerpts/clips for non-promotional use.

“For programs produced after that date (July 1, 2008) the Producers will have the option of obtainingg consent at the time of original engagement. Because the current systems of administrating consent are cumbersome when applied to New Media, the parties agreed that within 90 days following ratification the Producers and the union will work together to develop a more streamlined administrative system…”

As SAG negotiators were to learn later, boy, did they ever develop a less cumbersome and more streamlined system. Consent is a requirement of employment. That’s right, boys and girls. If you don’t give your consent, you don’t get the job. Hello? That ain’t called consent, it’s called extoriton! (Oh, by the way, there is no mention of CONSENT BEING A REQUIREMENT OF EMPLOYMENT in the summaries of both the DGA and WGA agreement that I read.)

So, much for the Producer Propaganda that SAG is asking for a better deal than the other guilds.

Producers are asking, not only, for SAG to give up it’s Force Majeure provision, which has been in SAG’s collective bargaining agreements since the 1940’s, but to drop members Force Majeure cases that are a result of the WGA strike, cases which have already been filed for arbitration. (If SAG did drop them wouldn’t they be open to lawsuits from members involved in the arbitration process?)

Now, there is no evidence that the AMPTP made the same request of DGA/WGA which have Force Majeure protections in their agreements.

Bottom line is that SAG is not trying to get a better deal on Force Majeure than the writers/directors, since they have not been asked to forfiet it by the AMPTP. Not only is SAG not getting a better deal, it is in fact being offered a worse deal, since the WGA/DGA was not asked to do what SAG is being asked to do. Which is to Give up a provision that has been in its collective bargaining agreement for over SIXTY YEARS. This ain’t about getting a better deal, it’s about rejecting another of the many rollbacks in the producers current offer to SAG.

As for us getting a better deal than AFTRA on Force Majeure: Once again how can we get a better deal than AFTRA since they passed the buck to SAG on Force Majeure. This from the AFTRA Information booklet quoted above:

Any changes that may by (sic) made to the “Force Majeure and illness” provisions in ther 2008 negotiation of the SAG Television Agreement will be incorporated into Exhibit A”

For instance, the WGA provision states, “If a new media program is derivative of an MBA-covered program (MBA:Minimum Basic Agreement) minimums for initial compensation apply. The minimum for derivative dramatic programs is $618 dollars for programs up to TWO MINUTES, plus $309 dollars FOR EACH ADDITIONAL MINUTE.

Now let’s look at the deal they have for Actors. This from the AFTRA Deal that SAG is also being offered.

Terms and Conditions for performers working on a derivative or original production include… Initial compensation will be subject to individual negotiation.

I don’t know about you, but, but don’t it seem like writers are getting a wee better deal than producers are now offering SAG actors. And hello, you hard-nosed AFTRA negotiators, I really don’t need AFTRA if I have to negotiate the damn contract myself. With SAG/AFTRA signatories being allowed to do non-union shows with actors being left to negotiate their own contracts, there’ll soon be a new name for these new media actors, they’ll be called Fi-Core members.

Producer: "Oh, you are? Too bad. Hey, SAG wouldn't let us signatories do non-union work if they didn't want you to do it. Right? But, but, hey, just to play it safe, why don't you go fi-core. Trust me, they don't care. Good, let me just get the paper work here. No, no, I don't have to contact them, they leave it up to us to producers. Yeah, sign right there! Gooood!"

Hey, I could go on, about product integration, no residuals to performers in programs produced prior to 1974 that are shown on the Internet, (This is especially unfair to our Seniors) and other AMPTP proposala not dealt with in the other deals-- but I think you get the idea.

Oh, and how about French Hours? I’ll bet you an unscheduled lunch that we aren’t getting a better deal than the DGA/WGA and AFTRA-- because there is no mention of this provision in any of their new deals.

Producer: "We’ll start the first day of shooting with only one scene, the one between my niece and her boyfriend. Oh, by the way check with the cast present and see if they are “okay” with French Hours?"